regeneration bame

							1 \'a9 Belinda Lawley, Adam Hinton\tab \tab
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\tab \tab \tab contents
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustr
ight\rin0\lin1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\tab \tab
foreword by Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London\tab 3
\par
\par \tab \tab foreword by Lee Jasper, Mayor\rquote s Advisor on Equality
and Policing\tab 4
\par
\par \tab \tab executive summary \tab 7
\par
\par \tab 1\tab introduction and background\tab 13
\par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \fi-1701\li1700\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1133\tx1700\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adj
ustright\rin0\lin1700\itap0
\f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f44\cf1
\tab Aims of the study\tab 13
\par \tab Policy context\tab 13
\par \tab Defining the terms\tab 15
\par \tab Method and approach\tab 17
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustr
ight\rin0\lin1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par \tab 2\tab review of strategies\tab 19
\par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \fi-1701\li1700\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1133\tx1700\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adj
ustright\rin0\lin1700\itap0
\f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f44\cf1
\tab
An overview of Londonwide strategies\tab 20
\par \tab Implementing national strategies at the local level\tab 22
\par \tab European strategies\tab 23
\par \tab Supporting documents and plans\tab 23
\par \tab Mainstreaming BME themes in regeneration strategies\tab 24
\par \tab Funding allocations\tab 25
\par \tab BME involvement in strategies\tab 25
\par \tab Summary\tab 26
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustr
ight\rin0\lin1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par \tab 3\tab analysis of regeneration funding\tab 27
\par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \fi-1701\li1700\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1133\tx1700\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adj
ustright\rin0\lin1700\itap0
\f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f44\cf1
\tab Data collection\tab 28
\par \tab Analysis of spend\tab 29
\par \tab Analysis of outputs\tab 31
\par \tab Summary\tab 34
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustr
ight\rin0\lin1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\tab 4 \tab key issu
es and evidence of good practice\tab 37
\par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \fi-1701\li1700\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1133\tx1700\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adj
ustright\rin0\lin1700\itap0
\f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f44\cf1
\tab Identifying BME communities\tab 37

\par \tab Engagement of BME communities\tab 39
\par \tab Funding and sustainability\tab 41
\par \tab Capacity building and community support\tab 44
\par \tab Enterprise and business support\tab 46
\par \tab Monitoring and evaluation\tab 46
\par \tab Summary\tab 49
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustr
ight\rin0\lin1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\tab 5\tab
discussion emerging from the research\tab 51
\par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \fi-1701\li1700\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1133\tx1700\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adj
ustright\rin0\lin1700\itap0
\f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f44\cf1
\tab
Understanding the purpose of regeneration\tab 51
\par \tab Subsidiarity - communities and local solutions\tab 51
\par \tab Setting targets and measuring performance\tab 52
\par \tab Completeness and efficiency\tab 52
\par \tab Mainstreaming or ring-fencing\tab 53
\par \tab Summary\tab 53
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustr
ight\rin0\lin1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\tab 6 \tab
conclusions and recommendations\tab 55
\par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \fi-1701\li1700\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1133\tx1700\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adj
ustright\rin0\lin1700\itap0
\f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f44\cf1
\tab London\rquote
s distribution of regeneration funding\tab 56
\par \tab Improving impact\tab 58
\par \tab BME involvement in strategy and in delivery\tab 59
\par \tab Strategic leadership to close the gap\tab 60
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tqr\tx8163\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustr
ight\rin0\lin1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\tab \tab
Appendix 1 - analysis of regeneration spend \tab 63
\par
\par \tab \tab foot notes\tab 68\tab
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\tab \tab
foreword by Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Promoting equality and tackling racism are important priorities for my
administration.
\par London has seen constant and fundamental change throug
hout its history and its ability to respond to economic, social and
environmental challenges is one of the reasons for its success. London
has faced and adapted to huge changes in the global economy, which have
presented opportunities and challenges. Its
s
uccess has triggered a massive regeneration programme that will transform
many parts of London. A key challenge is to ensure that all Londoners
have the opportunity to share in the success of their city. This means
breaking down barriers and putting an en
d to discrimination.
\par Black and Asian minority ethnic communities have raised time and
again that they have not always shared in the benefits from regeneration;
there are too many instances where these communities have watched from
the sidelines as a specta
cular physical transformation of their neighbourhoods takes place while
their social conditions remain unaltered.
\par This report was commissioned to help policy makers understand the
many complex and interlinking factors that determine the spend and impact
o
f regeneration on Black and Asian minority ethnic communities. It should
be considered alongside my Economic Development Strategy for delivering
healthy, sustainable, high quality communities and urban environments.
The recommendations in the report requi
re sustained investment and action to make a positive difference to
disadvantaged areas.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Ken Livingstone
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Mayor of London
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\tab \tab foreword by Lee Jasper, Mayor\rquote
s Advisor on Equality and Policing
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Since his election in 2000 the Mayor of London has worked to find
ways to ensure that all of London\rquote s residents can contribute to,
and share in the economic success and prosperity of our Capital.
Celebrating the cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity of
London\rquote
s population has been key to this task., And there is much to celebrate.
\par London is the most diverse city in the world. 29% of Londoners were
born outside the UK, whilst 35% of London\rquote s workers were born
abroad. Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) workers can be seen
making substantial inroads into careers an
d industrial sectors that earlier generations would have considered as
either beyond reach or even off limits. And over the next ten years BAME
workers are expected to account for well over three-quarters of all the
growth expected in London\rquote
s working age population. Today we can applaud the performance of BAME
businesses in London, which has a combined sales turnover of at least
\'a390 billion per annum, employing more than 560,000 people; including
93,000 self employed people.
\par However, alongside the success stories lie stark disparities in the
social and economic circumstances and outcomes of many BAME communities
continue to exist, when compared to that of the White community. The
Government\rquote s \'93
National strategy for Neighborhood Renewal\'94 is aimed at tackl
ing inequalities growing the gap between the most deprived areas and the
rest. Race equality remains critical to the successful delivery of
neighborhood renewal, improving life for those members of BAME groups
disproportionately concentrated in deprived
areas.
\par Historically institutional racism has been rife in the area of
regeneration. Racial disadvantage has developed through a cycle of
deprivation and lack of investment. Black people disproportionately live
in poor run down property, in overcrowded con
ditions and on many of the worst local authority estates. Regeneration of
these areas has been aimed at buildings and not always at people. Thus
Black communities continue to end up excluded and marginalised.
\par Lower employment and earning rates; educationa
l under-achievement and attainment; higher levels overcrowding in housing
that is often in disrepair - it is true to say that multiple deprivations
still persist on a large scale among many BAME communities. This has
understandably lead to the view, voice
d particularly by BAME Londoners themselves, that several decades of
effort by public authorities to tackle disadvantage in BAME communities
have largely failed.
\par The Mayor of London is determined that these issues should be faced
head on. If BAME communit
ies are to be an active participant and contributor to the regeneration
of large areas of our city, then they should be confident that the public
and private agencies charged with these responsibilities will also take
their interests into account. These a
re issues that go not only to the heart of the Mayor of London\rquote
s economic development policies, but are fundamental to the achievement
of higher economic growth and stronger social cohesion. It is why the
Mayor has taken the lead and commissioned this research to examine the
role and impact of regeneration in London
\rquote s BAME communities.
\par In this report, the researchers have presented a compelling picture
of the regeneration investment landscape, and the complex decision making
that determine regeneration spend and the subsequent impact on BAME
communities across London. It raises vital qu
estions about how spend can more effectively reflect the regeneration
priorities of BAME communities and the means by which outcomes of
regeneration schemes can be best monitored and assessed.
\par We hope this report will make an important and influential contr
ibution towards building a better and shared understanding of the impact
of regeneration initiatives on BAME communities, and encourage the
development of fresh thinking and more innovative policy formulation
around the challenge of tackling inequalities
and delivering improved outcomes for the future.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Lee Jasper
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Director - Equalities and Policing
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par \tab \tab executive summary
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Introduction and background
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
The Greater London Authority (GLA) and the London Development Agency
(LDA) commissioned this report to invest
igate the extent to which public expenditure for regeneration and renewal
programmes systematically target black and minority ethnic (BME)
communities in London, and whether actual spend has been proportionally
distributed within BME communities to meet i
dentified need. The study aims to answer a number of key questions:
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
How much economic development funding is being spent on \line BME
communities?
\par \tab \bullet \_What is the scale of the regeneration ambition in
relation to \line BME communities?
\par \tab \bullet \_What are the successes and are these attributable to
regeneration programmes?
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1 A
significant percentage of London\rquote
s black and minority ethnic population live in low-income and deprived
areas. Despite investment over a number of years these areas continue to
have higher rates of u
nemployment and inactivity, and continue to be in need of continued
physical regeneration.
\par This report examines how BME communities are affected by the level
and nature of regeneration spending. The report addresses two main
questions: whether persistent
deprivation is caused to any extent by the distribution of regeneration
funding in London; and how local spending priorities are determined and
the nature of the funded activities. A number of key findings emerge that
will need to be addressed by London p
olicy-makers.
\par First, while the spatial relationship between poverty and ethnicity
is highly significant, it is clear that poverty is the principal driver
in the allocation of regeneration funds across London\rquote s boroughs.
If deprivation in BME communities is
not being sufficiently tackled, then the areas to be addressed are
distribution and use of funding at the sub-borough level and/or the focus
of funding.
\par Second, despite evidence of improved performance in some London
boroughs, indicators continue to show d
ifferences between ethnic groups in skills, employment and earnings. If
these gaps are to be closed then regeneration funding needs to be
effectively invested at the local level. The contribution regeneration
spending may make in closing these gaps is cur
rently difficult to quantify.
\par Third, irrespective of the level of funding, there seems to be a
general scepticism within BME communities that they are not getting
sufficient regeneration funds and are insufficiently involved in
determining spending prioriti
es. It could be that closing the gap is as much about how funds are spent
- not just the actual level of funds.
\par Fourth, it is not clear that measuring the impact of regeneration
funds on BME communities is a priority or a shared objective. Some
regeneratio
n funders are starting to set specific BME targets. However, other
agencies are continuing to operate programmes without BME targets.
\par The task for policy-makers is therefore to find ways to resolve the
problem that spending may be broadly proportionate to deprivation, but
the gaps between the white and BME populations are not closing
sufficiently.
\par London\rquote s distribution of regeneration funding
\par }\pard\plain \s24\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
On the basis of available figures, the analysis at borough level shows a
strong positive relationship between depr
ivation and the allocation of regeneration funding. If this relationship
is not leading to a sufficient narrowing of the gap between BME and white
populations then the options are:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
to make ethnicity play more of a role in determining funding decisions at
the London level
\par \tab \bullet \_to encourage local authorities and partnerships to
improve their assessment of the use of regeneration funding in closing
local gaps.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Finding the best way forward would be helped if determining impact at the
sub-borough level was e
asier. Unfortunately, there are limits to existing data that make
assessment difficult. Consequently, analysis at borough level only may
mask a breakdown within boroughs of the relationship between deprivation,
ethnicity and spending. The extent of additi
onal monitoring data that would have to be collected from funded
organisations and local authorities may mean that it is impractical to
have a detailed Londonwide impact assessment for local areas.
\par It may be more feasible to adopt a targeted approach to inv
estigating the distribution of funds. If the principal objective is to
close the opportunity gap, then concentrating on the larger deprived BME
communities is particularly important. This will not deal with smaller
concentrations in more affluent boroughs

- other methods will be needed so they are not further marginalised.
There are also a number of issues regarding the measurement of impact
that are beyond the ability of local or London partners to change. These
are constraints which national agencies and
 government will need to address.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Recommendations
\par }\pard\plain \s24\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
1. \_The GLA should:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
ensure that strategic objectives and policies for BME communities are
measurable
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
encourage the development of a framework by London \line strategic
partners that enables the targeting of funds on \line strategic
objectives.
\par }\pard\plain \s24\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
2. \_
The LDA should lead in developing an acceptable monitoring system that
can be implemented in target boroughs, including:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
monitoring of funding to BME organisations and businesses
\par \tab \bullet \_beneficiary monitoring that records both ethnicity
and postcode.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
3. \_
The LDA should develop detailed guidance on the evaluation and assessment
of regeneration impacts on BME communities.
\par 4. \_GOL should identify the barriers in national funding programmes
\line to implementing a BME London framework for targeting and monitoring
funding.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Improving impact and BME involvement
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
The case studies have provided mixed evidence at the local level of
engagement and positive impact. There are signs from som
e of the case study areas that real improvements are being made against
many of the key performance indicators. However, there is also evidence
to suggest that in some areas, BME groups are not benefiting. There is
also evidence to suggest that the invest
m
ent of significant regeneration funds can have a negative impact upon
community cohesion. There are no apparent mechanisms for sharing
information about effective approaches. The emphasis needs to be on
improving impact through better project and knowledg
e management, inclusive decision-making, and innovative service delivery.
\par The regeneration process also includes the development planning
process. Major developments can have an adverse, positive or neutral
impact on BME communities. However, practices are
  not uniform and only one London local authority has included BME
organisations on a list of preferred partners for development work on
Section 106 sites.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Recommendations
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
5. \_
The LDA and GOL should examine how much the existing networks they fund
promote sharing of information between regeneration stakeholders about
BME communities and cohesive approaches \line to regeneration.
\par 6. \_The GLA should actively promote the idea that all appropriate
commissioning frameworks in London should include BME organisations. The
GLA should sponsor work assessing the capability of public agencies to
involve BME organisations in delivery.

\par 7. \_The LDA should require its Regeneration Centre of Excellence
(RCE) to make improving impact for BME communities a priority in its work
programme.
\par 8. \_The LDA should commission good practice advice notes for local
partners.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Strategic leadership to close the gap
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Within the main regeneration strategies there are no more than two policy
areas that explicitly target BME groups. Most regeneration
strategies pay insufficient regard to differentials between BME groups.
The two main BME targets included in London strategies are increasing
employment rates, and reducing unemployment for BME communities.
Achieving these could have a considerable impact
 on the economic position of BME communities and their perception of
regeneration funding. The critical next step needs to be an action plan
with specific targets.
\par The level of support given to enable BME groups to participate in
planning and delivering reg
eneration is presently inadequate, given the scale of the problem. The
support agencies and networks that have been developed to provide support
are themselves constrained by a lack of resource and capacity.
\par There are a number of steps that strategic rege
neration partners can take to increase the effectiveness of their impact
on BME communities in London. First, they should jointly examine their
plans and targets to ensure that they are complementary. Second, they
should agree on high-level strategic targ
ets. Third, this should be backed up by an action plan that details
partner contributions and milestones.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par Recommendations
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
9. \_
The GLA should initiate a process to lead to the publication of a London
Accord for BME communities by Spring 2007.
\par 10. \_The LDA should take the lead on co-ordinating a detailed
action plan with milestones for measuring progress.
\par }\pard\plain \s24\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
11. \_All London regeneration strategies should:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
take a more segmented approach to target-setting for \line BME
communities
\par \tab \bullet \_align targets between different funding programmes
and initiatives
\par \tab \bullet \_commit to ring-fenced funding for BME target groups
\par \tab \bullet \_identify support for BME regeneration networks in
London
\par \tab \bullet \_set targets for the involvement of BME organisations
and businesses in the delivery of regeneration initiatives.
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\fs24\cf1
\par
\par }{\f1\cf1 \tab 1\tab \tab introduction and background
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.1 \tab
This report investigates the extent to which public expenditure for
regeneration and renewal programme
s systematically target black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in
London, and whether actual spend has been proportionally distributed
within BME communities to meet identified need. The report was
commissioned by the Greater London Authority (GLA) a
nd the London Development Agency (LDA).
\par \tab 1.2 \tab Despite several decades of public authority investment
addressing the social and economic disadvantages faced by BME communities
in London, there is strong evidence that multiple deprivation still
persists on a
 large scale among BME communities. Recent research conducted for the LDA
suggested that:
\par }\pard\plain \s27\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f45\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\lquote
...money that trickles through the UK public expenditure system \line
does appear to target the most deprived communities in London, to \line a
large extent.\rquote 1
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.3 \tab This res
earch seeks to test this hypothesis further.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Aims of the study
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.4 \tab
The study aims to answer the key questions about BME economic
development:
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
How much economic development funding is being spent on \line BME
communities?
\par \tab \bullet \_What is the scale of the regeneration ambition in
relation to \line BME communities?
\par \tab \bullet \_What are the successes, and are these attributable
to regeneration programmes?
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.5 \tab
The study also intends to provide a comparative perspective between
boroughs and different BME communities, illustrat
ing the ways in which different institutional and organisational
interrelationships condition the proportion of funding and the
effectiveness of regeneration strategies on BME communities. Underlying
these aims is the assumption that regeneration outcomes
 can be measured in an objective and scientific way. The study will
identify where measurements are not possible and make recommendations for
future monitoring requirements.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Policy context
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.6 \tab
The relationship between areas of high deprivation and BME pop
ulations has long been recognised by policy analysts. Building on the
early findings of the Policy Action Team reports, the National Strategy
for Neighbourhood Renewal makes an explicit commitment to involving and
benefiting BME communities. In England 75

per cent of all BME communities are living in the 88 most deprived local
authority districts targeted by Neighbourhood Renewal. Of all BME
communities 31 per cent in England live in the 17 most deprived London
boroughs. In policy terms, the main area-base
d initiatives aim to target large concentrations of individuals in need.
However, the greater economic potential of some deprived areas has also
continued to feature significantly in the allocation of regeneration
funds since the 1980s.
\par \tab 1.7 \tab The context for area-based economic development in
London is uniquely complex, with a deep and growing polarisation between
one of the world\rquote s most wealthy economies and some of the
country\rquote
s poorest communities. London is one of the world\rquote s foremost
global cities, wit
h an unrivalled mix of ethnic minority communities. The 1990s saw
unprecedented population change, with the arrival of large numbers of
Africans, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans. The number of BME people rose
from 1.3 million to more than 2 million (29 per c
ent) during this time. Within a few years, BME children will be in the
majority in London\rquote s schools as accelerating population shifts
transform the composition of the capital.
\par \tab 1.8 \tab The Mayor\rquote s Economic Development Strategy (EDS)
is the main plan for action for all those involved in London\rquote
s economy and concerned with its success. The strategy seeks to secure
sustainable economic growth and redress social inequality produced or
exacerbated by this growth. However, the EDS is only one of several of
strategic
 documents aiming to address the various economic disparities between
London\rquote
s diverse communities. The sheer number of area-based initiatives across
London in recent years has produced a complex arrangement of
interventions. These initiatives have tested the scope of multi-agency
working as well as the balance between the
\lquote completeness\rquote and \lquote efficiency\rquote of funding
programmes across the region.
\par \tab 1.9 \tab There is evidence to suggest that targeted initiatives
are beginning to improve performance against some key
 indicators. Four years into the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, the gap
between the 88 most deprived local authorities and the English average is
decreasing for most indicators - including employment rates and
educational attainment2. This improvement is
 also reflected in some of London\rquote s most deprived boroughs3.
However, London\rquote
s labour market continues to underperform against the national average
with fewer Londoners in work, and the large majority of boroughs
struggling to reach national targets for full employment. It is clear
that in London\rquote
s increasingly competitive economy, BME communities are greatly
disadvantaged. The underlying indicators continue to show huge
differences between BME groups and the white population in relation to
employment, skills and earnings.
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
The employment rate for the working age population in London differs
between 75 per cent for the white population and 57 per cent for the BME
population4.
\par \tab \bullet \_People from BME groups make up 29 per cent of
London\rquote s working-age population and 24 per cent of London\rquote s
workers, but 44 per cent of unemployed people in London5.
\par \tab \bullet \_Achievement of NVQ Level 4 and above differs between
37 per cent of the white population and 26 per cent of the BME population
in London. Some groups have a lower ac
hievement rate: less than 10 per cent of the Bangladeshi population
achieve NVQ Level 4 and above6.
\par \tab \bullet \_The gross weekly wage in London differs between an
average of \'a3528 for the white population and an average of \'a3397 for
the BME population. Some groups -
 including Bangladeshi and white/black African groups - earn on average
less than half the weekly wage of white Londoners7.
\par \tab \bullet \_At the national level there are persistent
disparities in educational attainment. For example, in 2003, 51 per cent
of white chi
ldren attained the national average of five or more A* to C-graded GCSE
passes, compared with 33 per cent of black Caribbean children8.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Defining the terms
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
The following terms have been used in this study.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Regeneration
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.10 \tab
For the purpose of this study we have used the term \lquote
regeneration\rquote \line inter-changeably with \lquote renewal\rquote
and \lquote economic development\rquote . \line
We recognise that there is no fixed definition which could easily be
applied to the study. However, in terms of funding programmes, we \line
have purposely ignored both mainstream and some area-based funding
programmes eg Employment, Health and Education Action Zones. Many of
these programmes have since been integrated and mainstreamed, whilst
continuing programmes like Employment Zone
s do not aim to directly join up other policy areas or lever additional
funding (either revenue or capital, public or private) as part of a
multi-agency or partnership approach.
\par }\pard \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 {\f1\cf1 \tab 1.11 \tab Consequently, information for the
following funding programmes has been sought as part of this research:

\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_Single Regeneration Budget
\par \tab \bullet \_LDA Single Programme (including LDA2)
\par \tab \bullet \_Neighbourhood Renewal
\par \tab \bullet \_Neighbourhood Management
\par \tab \bullet \_New Deal for Communities
\par \tab \bullet \_Skills and Knowledge Programme
\par \tab \bullet \_Sure Start
\par \tab \bullet \_European Funding Programmes (including Objective 2,
3 and Urban II)
\par \tab \bullet \_ALG - Voluntary Sector Grant Funding
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
Local Authority funding (including Section 106 and grant-\line funded
programmes).
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.12 \tab
We recognise that a broader view of regeneration would include other
funding streams, for example, business support, housing, education and
health. However, the project steering groups and focus group participants
accepted the potential difficulties in collecting such a wide range of
funding information within the availabl
e timescale for this study.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
BME communities
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.13\tab
 We recognise that the recent influxes of east Europeans into London, as
well as other established white immigrant communities, including Irish,
are minority groups. We understand that the Commission for Rac
ial Equality (CRE) has recommended a modified set of categories to
include minority white groups and prefer the use of the term \lquote
ethnic minority\rquote as a general umbrella term.
\par \tab 1.14 \tab However, we have used the term \lquote black and
minority ethnic\rquote (BME) throughou
t this report as a collective shorthand covering all groups of people
living in London who cannot readily be identified with the various white
groups recorded in the 2001 Census. All analysis of ethnicity is based -
where possible - on the 16 categories f
or ethnicity as described by the last Census.
\par }\pard \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 {\f1\cf1 \tab
\par \tab 1.15 \tab Any broad term chosen to cover such a wide spectrum
of groupings is bound to be problematic, and the term, \lquote black and
minority ethnic\rquote is no exception. Where possible we have attempted
to consider the d
ifferences between BME communities separately and not under a single
\lquote BME\rquote heading. There are, however, other differences within
and between BME communities which we have not been able to adequately
describe, including:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_differences in how long a commun
ity has been established in the UK - eg between second and third
generation communities
\par \tab \bullet cultural and religious / faith differences.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.16 \tab
The issue of definition highlights a wider policy issue: that this
research is dependent on the ways in which BME
 categories have been defined and data collected. There are concerns that
area-based targeting of regeneration funds may mean that some BME
communities are missing out on support because there may be insufficient
numbers (or methods to account for detaile
d ethnic groupings) within the proscribed area to warrant a particular
targeted approach.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Method and approach
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 1.17 \tab
Our approach to this study was based on four main inputs.
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \bullet \_
Phase 1: four exploratory focus groups exploring the research questions
with stakeholders including two focus groups with strategic partners and
funders, and two with representatives from London\rquote
s BME communities involved in the regeneration process
\par \tab \bullet \_Phase 2: desk research examining partner strategies
and plans and exploring the scale of the regeneration ambition in
relation to BME communities
\par \tab \bullet \_Phase 3: quantitative analysis of the various
regeneration funding programmes across London over the past five years to
assess the proportionality of funding in relation to BME populations
\par \tab \bullet \_Phase 4: comparative case studies of three area-
based initiatives to explore the perceived impact of regeneration on
different BME communities at the local level.
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\fs24\cf1
\par
\par }{\f1\cf1 2.\tab \tab review of strategies
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Introduction
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.1 \tab
This section summarises the main findings from the review of key \lquote
over-arching\rquote regeneration strategies and plans in London. The
main documents we have reviewed are:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab \_}{\f1\cf1
The Economic Development Strategy, 2005 - 16
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The London Plan, 2004 -
2020
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The Framework for Regional
Employment and Skills Action \line (FRESA), 2002
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The London European
Objective 2 - Single Programming Document
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The London Objective 3 -
Regional Development Plan, and
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The Urban II Community
Initiative - Programme Document.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.2 \tab I
n addition we have reviewed contextual material which offers additional
information to support the main strategies, for example:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
The LDA Corporate Plan, 2004 - 07
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The LDA Annual Report and
Accounts, 2003 - 04
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The LDA Race Equality
Scheme,
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The LDA BME Business
Action Plan, 2002
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The European Mainstreaming
Equalities Action Plan, 2005 - 06
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 A Review of Public
Expenditure in London, 2003,
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister: Improving the delivery of affordable housing in London
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 The Section 106 Good
Practice Guide.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.3 \tab
We have also considered some national strategies, such as the
Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy in relation to Local Strategic Partnership
plans, which help to target funding at the neighbourhood level.
\par }\pard \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 {\f1\cf1 \tab 2.4 \tab The emphasis
of our review has been the extent to which regeneration strategies
systematically target BME communities, particularly in relation to:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
policy intent and measures for action
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 strategic and operational
involvement of stakeholders and beneficiaries
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 targets for action
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 monitoring and evaluation
procedures
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 resources and funding
allocations (appropriate to targets)
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 integration with existing
strategies and funding programmes.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.5 \tab
A matrix summarising the strategies and documents, which we have reviewed
can be found in Supplementary Paper 1 on the GLA website
www.london.gov.uk
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1
\par An overview of Londonwide strategies
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.6 \tab
BME communities are one of many disadvantaged groups identified in the
key Londonwide strategies. The first observation is that
 in each strategy, BME people are treated as a homogenous group, with no
specific distinctions made between different BME communities, or between
different generations, different religious or cultural groups or gender.
This highlights questions about how
well informed policy-makers are about the various needs of BME
populations and how generic regeneration policies and initiatives can
address the individual needs of different BME communities.
\par \tab 2.7\tab Secondly, although BME communities are referenced
within each of the key regeneration strategies, there are often no more
than two individual measures that explicitly target BME groups. The
\lquote objectives\rquote , \lquote measures\rquote
 and \lquote targets\rquote addressing BME groups within existing
strategies are summarised in the table below.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Table 1: Summary of key strategies and plans

\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\fs20\cf1
\par \tab }{\f1\cf1 2.8 \tab The third observation relates to setting
targets. Most of the key regeneration strategies identify some form of
targets or performance indicators for BME groups. However, these targets
vary greatly in terms
  of addressing existing disparities between BME communities and other
groups in London. Some strategies set targets that specifically aim to
address differentials within stated timeframes. Others set fixed quotas
for BME beneficiaries. Some strategies hav
e not established specific targets for measures aiming to address BME
communities.
\par \tab 2.9 \tab The main activities contained in regeneration
strategies that are directed at BME groups largely focus on improving
skills and employment programmes for BME users, and
to a lesser extent, improving the capacity of BME-owned enterprises.
Despite this convergence of interest across existing strategies and
funding programmes there is little evidence of integrated measures and
shared targets for BME communities.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
The Economic Development Strategy
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.10 \tab
The Economic Development Strategy (EDS - Objective 2) aims to improve
employment rates for BME groups \lquote by more\rquote than the overall
increase in the employment rate in London. Achieving an increased
employment rate for BME groups w
ould address existing disparities and, if sustained, would bring BME
employment in line with average employment rates. However, current
targets are not sufficiently disaggregated to reflect disparities in
employment rates between different BME communities
.
\par \tab 2.11 \tab Another example from the EDS is the target for
addressing barriers to start-up and growth (Objective 1). This is \lquote
to maintain or improve London\rquote s net business start-up rate over
each economic cycle\rquote
. Again this would appear to be a good target for measuring improvement.
However, if this target is applied to BME enterprises it does not take
into consideration disparities between BME communities in the number of
BME-owned enterprises9.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
The London Plan
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.12 \tab
The London Plan (Objective 4/3 B12) offers
 the most satisfactory target for BME groups in London. The measure aims
to ensure that new developments are used to assist in skills action and
employment opportunities for local people. The target is to bring
unemployment rates for BME groups in line wi
th the white population by 2016. Unfortunately, this target is not
aligned with the LDA\rquote s new Economic Development Strategy or other
strategies and plans.
\par \tab 2.13 \tab Another measure in The London Plan (Objective 2/3
A.14) aims to identify the needs of diverse
groups to ensure they are not disadvantaged by the development and
planning process. However, there are no set targets for this measure.
This perhaps reflects the general difficulty in quantifying \lquote
people\rquote targets in relation to \lquote
physical\rquote development. Alt
hough The London Plan attempts to address the impact of physical
development upon diverse communities the direct effect of mainstream
economic and physical development priorities upon BME communities is less
defined within most regeneration strategies.

\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Implementing national strategies at the local level
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.14 \tab
A key element of the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy is the improvement of
mainstream services to produce better outcomes in the most deprived
areas. The Indices of Deprivation and the old Index of Lo
cal Deprivation define deprived areas. This means that in the context of
neighbourhood renewal funding (NRF), BME groups are treated as part of a
wider disadvantaged population. However, since NRF is currently targeting
25 per cent of all local authority
districts in England, which collectively contain 75 per cent of the total
BME population, there is a significant relationship within the national
strategy between poverty, geography and ethnicity.
\par \tab 2.15 \tab There are 20 London boroughs in receipt of NRF, incl
uding Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield,
Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington
& Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Waltham
Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster. The BME
 population in these boroughs represents 31 per cent of the total BME
population for England and 67 per cent of the total BME population for
London.
\par \tab
\par \tab 2.16 \tab The Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP), within the
boroughs, have developed strategies to invest th
eir NRF allocations. A number of boroughs have identified specific wards
with high BME populations for NRF interventions. However, due to the
extent of deprivation across borough wards many LSPs have taken a
borough-wide approach. The evidence from some L
o
cal Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies suggests that the level of targeting
within BME communities is providing a finer grain approach to diverse
communities, for example, focusing on Bengali and Somali communities.
However, these are not necessarily reflec
ted in the local Public Service Agreements (PSA) floor targets, agreed by
the LSP, which will report aggregated BME outputs and changes to broad
indicators such as employment rates in the borough.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 European strategies
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.17 \tab
European funding programmes distinguish between \lquote mainstream\rquote
  beneficiaries and excluded groups when they identify target beneficiary
groups. However, they also consider BME groups as an homogenous group,
and each programme strategy contains no more than one or two BME-specific
measures.
\par \tab 2.18 \tab While BME targets are not specified within the
European strategies, crosscutting themes for \lquote equal
opportunities\rquote impose targets with regards to impact on BME
communities, detailed below. The bidding process for Eu
ropean funding also requires projects to record anticipated output
information for various BME groups. However, the question remains whether
these intentions are ultimately reflected in terms of programme outputs
and outcomes, and whether outputs and outc
omes for different BME groups can be assessed in the same level of detail
as recorded in the application process.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Supporting documents and plans
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.19 \tab
There are a range of supporting documents and plans, which contain more
detailed information about target
s and performance measures. These lower level documents are more
transparent in their stated aims and consequently more useful to users
seeking to understand the crosscutting nature of equality themes in the
main strategies.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
The LDA Corporate Plan
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.20 \tab The LDA\rquote
s Corporate Plan has increased targets for black and Asian Londoners and
those from London\rquote s other minority ethnic communities accessing
jobs and learning opportunities from 29 per cent to 40 per cent. This
target will contribute to achieving an in
crease in the BME employment rate above the London average, as stated in
the EDS.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
The Equal Opportunities Mainstreaming Action Plan
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.21 \tab
The Equal Opportunities Mainstreaming Action Plan is the main instrument
for setting crosscutting targets for equality groups in London\rquote
s European programmes. The Action Plan has increased European Social Fund
(ESF) targets for BME groups within the Objective 2 and 3 programmes from
25 per cent at the beginning of the programme to 28 per cent. Targets
include participatio
n rates, new jobs created, jobs safeguarded and businesses assisted.
While these targets are proportionally higher than the BME population,
they do not aim to address specific disparities between, for example,
employment rates or qualifications.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
LDA Race Equality Scheme
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.22 \tab
Equality is a crosscutting theme of the LDA\rquote s work and the Race
Equality Scheme provides the framework for mainstreaming activity across
all racial groups. The Race Equality Scheme commits to collecting and
analysing ethnic monitoring
 data at programme and project level to inform and improve the delivery
of key programmes in London. Equality Impact Assessments are a key
function of the Race Equality Scheme, and the LDA currently provide
assessments across the 22 Single Programme areas
. Arrangements to monitor and evaluate against targets also take into
account the heterogeneity of BME communities, with LDA programmes now
reporting BME outputs against the 2001 Census ethnicity codes.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
LDA BME Business Action Plan
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.23 \tab The LDA has develo
ped a series of six deliverable, interconnecting and crosscutting Action
Plans to address the disproportionate barriers to development and growth
faced by BME-owned businesses. The Action Plan will enable the LDA and
partners to develop joint and coherent
 business support strategies, including opportunities for BME-owned
businesses in public procurement contracts. Specialist groups working on
the development of the Action Plans have identified overarching targets
for BME business as \lquote
arguably inadequate\rquote 10, and have recommended action to review
existing targets and improve their penetration in ensuring real benefit
to BME businesses.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Mainstreaming BME themes in regeneration strategies
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.24 \tab
There is no specific Londonwide regeneration strategy to address BME
communities in London. There are, however, the BME objectives and
measures, identified above and broader crosscutting themes to address
equality and diversity in existing strategies.

\par \tab 2.25\tab Many of the crosscutting equality themes explicitly
focus on BME
 communities. There are individual projects and flagships initiatives
operating across funding programmes under the crosscutting themes, which
directly and specifically benefit BME communities on issues such as
education, training, BME enterprises, procur
ement, and workforce discrimination.
\par \tab 2.26 \tab \lquote Equality\rquote is integrated into most
partner strategies and objectives. In some strategies, targets have been
set to reflect the specific diversity at local level and have been
increased or adjusted annually again
st output indicators and in most respects, crosscutting targets are more
defined, with specific proportions for BME outputs and outcomes
identified.
\par \tab 2.27 \tab There is, however, a tension between crosscutting
themes and programme objectives. Crosscutting t
hemes are less prominent in strategies, with regeneration programmes
driven by the main objectives, and funding targets. There is a risk with
all crosscutting themes that the more detailed BME targets contained with
supporting documents and plans will not
  be achieved if funding allocations are not sufficiently skewed to meet
this.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Funding allocations
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.28 \tab
The supporting documents and plans also provide more detailed information
with regards to resources and funding allocations appropriate to specific
me
asures and target groups. However, funding has not been ring fenced for
equality groups or allocated to meet specific BME targets. Although the
EDS identifies resources to build the capacity of minority owned
enterprise, funding amounts are not fixed and
  \lquote are not necessarily at the level required to meet expected
demands, national priorities or required outputs\rquote 11.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 BME involvement in strategies
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.29 \tab
There are many levels of potential involvement by BME communities in the
development and implementation of regeneration strategies in London,
including strategic planning and delivery, as well as consultative and
scrutiny roles.
\par \tab 2.30 \tab Organisations, bodies and institutions representing a
range of BME groups (such as the Black Londoners Forum, the Commission
  for Racial Equality, The African Caribbean Business Network and Organic
India Limited) have endorsed the main Londonwide strategies. Although the
diverse range of BME communities cannot be represented by a single
representative body, it is clear that a r
ange of BME organisations have been involved in the strategic planning
process.
\par \tab 2.31 \tab Consultation processes for the development and on-
going assessment and review of existing strategies also provide
opportunities for input from BME organisations and groups, as well as the
wider public. The LDA\rquote
s Race Equality Scheme is dedicated to improving the assessment of
equality measures within the delivery of key programmes, through improved
consultation about proposed policies and services.
\par \tab 2.32 \tab There is also con
siderable involvement by BME organisations in the delivery process,
although existing strategies and plans do not identify explicit measures
to address or improve this role. Specific measures to improve BME
participation in public procurement are not curr
e
ntly embedded within the main economic development strategies. Measures
to more effectively engage BME groups in the development process through
improved Section 106 agreements is one area where assessing the equality
impacts of the physical development p
rocess on diverse communities could be improved12.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Summary
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 2.33 \tab
The key regeneration strategies and plans evidence relatively low levels
of commitment and ambition in relation to BME communities. In most
instances BME communities are presented as a homog
eneous group with no specific distinctions made between different BME
groups. Where strategies identify specific action there are often no more
than two individual sub-measures that explicitly target BME groups. There
are no funding allocations specifical
ly ring-fenced for BME groups.
\par \tab 2.34 \tab Most key strategies identify some targets or
performance indicators for BME groups. However, these targets vary
greatly between plans, in terms of addressing existing disparities
between BME communities and other group
s in London. There is also little evidence of integrated measures and
shared targets for BME communities between partner strategies and plans.
However, supporting documents and plans give greater prominence to
crosscutting equality themes, which provide t
he main detail for measuring BME targets. A number of positive
developments have occurred in mainstreaming equality themes across
London\rquote s regeneration programmes. The LDA\rquote
s Racial Equality Scheme and BME-business Action Plan are contributing to
a finer gra
ined approach in monitoring and assessing the impacts of regeneration
programmes on BME communities across London, while Local Strategic
Partnerships and NRF strategies are also contributing to this
mainstreaming agenda at the borough level.
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\fs24\cf1
\par
\par }{\f1\cf1 \tab 3\tab analysis of regeneration funding
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Introduction
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.1 \tab
Our analysis of regeneration funding in London is based on the actual
spend reported for the programmes identified in the table below.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1
Table 2: Summary of funding information received, by programme, by year
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par \tab 3.2 \tab It was our intention to analyse the concentration of
regeneration funding over a five-year period to establish the co-
efficiency between the levels of spend and the concentrations of BME
populations across London. However, a number of meth
odological constraints have presented themselves in the course of the
study, which to varying degrees has limited the refinement of this
approach.
\par \tab 3.3 \tab Some programmes, including Neighbourhood Renewal and
the Skills and Knowledge programme have been oper
ating in London for a shorter period of time, while the information for a
number of other funding programmes was not made available within the
timeframe for this study, including local authority grants and
investments levered through Section 106 agreement
s.
\par \tab 3.4 \tab
Also, the analysis of funding information at the local area level has
proven to be difficult since various partners mainly aggregate programme
data to London boroughs. Consequently, a finer grained correlation
between local neighbourhoods, specific
 BME populations and funding programmes has not been possible.
\par \tab 3.5 \tab The analysis of output information is further
constrained by the limited data provided. While we are able to provide a
broad assessment of output differentials for BME and non-BME groups
for the LDA and European programmes (ie Objectives 2 and 3) output
information for other programmes is either not held centrally by the main
funding partner or cannot be analysed in relation to ethnicity.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Data collection
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.6 \tab Data for actual programme sp
end has been collected from two \line main sources:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
the LDA provided data for the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), the
Single Programme and LDA_ (the LDA launched this programme in 2003 to
support the development and delivery of local economic development and
regeneration initiatives in London),
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 GOL provided data for all
European programmes, Neighbourhood Renewal, Neighbourhood Management, New
Deal for Communities and the Skills and Knowledge programme.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Funding and ethnicity
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.7 \tab Regeneration funding p
rogrammes are predominantly area-based and do not account for spend in
relation to individual beneficiaries. As such a straightforward analysis
of regeneration spend against ethnicity is not possible. All programmes
monitor BME outputs, although the LDA h
ave only recently begun to monitor according to individual ethnic
groupings.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Funding and geography
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.8 \tab
LDA programmes including SRB and the Single Programme are spatially
defined. However, many programmes are not coterminous with recognised
geographical b
oundaries such as electoral wards or boroughs, while some programmes cut
across boroughs. For example, the City Fringe Partnership targets 14
wards across four boroughs. Spend is not accounted for, by projects or
programmes, in terms of geography. Consequ
ently all funding data is aggregated at the borough level. LDA systems
provide a basic apportionment of spends where programmes operate across
boroughs.
\par \tab 3.9 \tab GOL account for spend at the borough level, with the
exception of European programmes, which are
recorded for London as a whole. However, we have been able to apply an
apportionment of Objective 2 spend across London boroughs, which are
eligible for this fund. Both New Deal for Communities and Neighbourhood
Management programmes are geographically de
f
ined at the sub-borough level and spend can therefore be disaggregated to
small neighbourhood areas. Similarly, many Local Strategic Partnerships
have identified priority wards within boroughs, for Neighbourhood Renewal
Funding, which enables a finer grai
ned analysis.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Limitations of available funding data
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.10 \tab
The inability to analyse funding in relation to ethnicity and the general
inconsistencies in how spend can be accounted for at t
he geographical level, prevent a localised analysis of the relationship
between funding, ethnicity and geography. We have, therefore, provided an
analysis of spends at the borough level, and an analysis of outcomes by
ethnicity, where information allows.

\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Analysis of spend
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.11 \tab
Having collated available funding information for the period 1999-2004 we
have calculated an average amount of spends per head at the borough
level. We have then proceeded to rank London boroughs in terms of:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 average spend per head
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 proportion of BME
populations (based on 2001 Census population)
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 deprivation (Indices of
Deprivation, 2004, average score).
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.12 \tab
These three variables provide the basis for our analysis of regeneration
funding in relation to BME communities. Appendix 1 lists all London
boroughs, which we have ranked by BME population density; regeneration
funding and IMD score. It also provides fur
ther analysis of linear regression models, which we have conducted as
part of this research.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Correlating regeneration spends with BME populations
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.13 \tab
A borough analysis of BME populations and regeneration spend reveals a
loose correlation. There is evide
nce of proportionality in the distribution of regeneration funding since
the level of spend does increase across London boroughs in relation to
the increased proportion of BME population. However, this relationship is
not a strong one. For example, Table
3
  below shows that Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney have the 1st, 3rd and
6th highest BME populations. These boroughs also have high levels of
regeneration spend per head (ranked 3rd, 2nd and 4th highest
respectively). But, if we look at other boroughs wi
th high BME populations such as Brent, Ealing and Harrow (2nd, 4th and
5th) we can see that there is a weak relationship to spend per head
(12th, 22nd, 25th).
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1
Table 3: London boroughs ranked by BME population density
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Correlating regeneration spends with deprivation
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.14 \tab
The relationship between regeneration spends and deprivation is much
stronger than the relationship of spend to BME population. The graph
below illustrates the results of the model we have used to explain the
correlation between spends pe
r head over the period 1999-2004 and the Index of Multiple Deprivation
2004 across London\rquote s boroughs13.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 \tab \tab
Funding compared with Index of Multiple Deprivation
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
260\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\fs20\cf1 Key to boroughs in graph}{\f44\cf1
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par \tab 3.15 \tab
This graph shows how the level of deprivation (the horizontal scale) is
related to amount of spend per head (the vertical scale) for each borough
in London14. Each point on the graph represents an individual borough -
see the key above. The further a poin
t is located to the right of the graph, the higher the level of
deprivation. The higher a point is, the greater the amount of
regeneration funding per head in that borough. The red line illustrates
the \lquote best fit\rquote or \lquote average\rquote
 between spends and deprivation explained by the model.
\par \tab 3.16 \tab Most boroughs are grouped either on or around the
line shown and therefore fit with the model, which explains how levels of
spend increase progressively faster in relation to increases in levels of
deprivation. However, there
 are some extreme outliers, which do not readily conform to the model.
Havering (point 15) is exceptional in so far as it exhibits low levels of
deprivation; low proportions of BME populations and relatively high
levels of regeneration spend. National pri
orities, like Thames Gateway, which would explain higher levels of
spending in this case, have not been included as an explanatory factor in
this analysis.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Correlating regeneration spends with deprivation and BME populations
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.17\tab There is a known link be
tween BME proportion of population and deprivation: areas with higher BME
populations tend to have higher levels of deprivation and vice versa.
Deprivation is the most highly significant variable explaining the
distribution of regeneration spends across L
ondon boroughs. However, when factoring BME populations in addition to
deprivation we have found that BME proportion provides an additional
influence in explaining the variations of spends.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Analysis of outputs
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.18 \tab Output information has been provided for:

\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
LDA programmes (covering the financial year 2003/2004) where BME
beneficiary is available
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 ESF programmes for
Objective 2 and 3 (accumulative performance information from 2000 to
February 2005).
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.19 \tab
The analysis of outputs is therefore limited in terms of:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
the number of programmes available for assessment
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the time period for
programming
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 how BME output data has
been collected.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.20 \tab
In all instances BME output data has been presented as a total aggregated
figure. It has not proved possible, therefore, to analyse output data
between different BME groups.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
LDA programmes
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.21 \tab
BME targets for jobs, learning opportunities and businesses supported are
29 per cent of the LDA\rquote s Corporate Plan total targets. According
to the output informati
on reported in 2003/04, most of these targets have been exceeded,
particularly in learning opportunities and access to jobs, where BME
beneficiaries represent 42 per cent and 47 per cent of all outputs
respectively.
\par \tab 3.22 \tab However, the LDA performance in r
elation to business support indicators shows that BME outputs for
business information (22 per cent), advice (26 per cent) and consultancy
(25 per cent) are all below the corporate targets for the year. Table 4,
below, summarises all outputs for all LDA p
rogrammes.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Table 4: \tab \tab
Total LDA Outputs for 2003 - 04
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
European Social Fund (ESF)
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.23 \tab
Equal opportunity data has been compiled for all ESF projects since the
start of the European programme in 2000. ESF targets for BME groups
within both the Objective 2 a
nd 3 programmes have been increased from 25 per cent at the beginning of
the programme to 28 per cent as agreed by the Equal Opportunities
Mainstreaming Action Plan.
\par \tab 3.24 \tab The projected numbers of BME outputs currently
contracted through the Objective 2 p
rogramme exceed the new 28 per cent target against most indicators with
the exception of Gross New Jobs in Priority 1 and Safeguarded Jobs in
Priority 3, which are currently below the target. The predominance of
projects contracted before 2004 largely exp
lain current discrepancies between targets.
\par \tab 3.25 \tab There are some encouraging signs fo
r performance rates against a number of indicators. Current outputs
achieved already exceed or meet new BME targets for Gross New Jobs,
Safeguarded Jobs and New SME Assisted in Priority 2 - which represents
the majority of outputs within the programme. Ho
w
ever, there are large disparities between current performance and
projected targets across Priorities 1 and 3. With less than two years to
deliver the Objective 2 programme, this gap between targets and outputs
represents a significant challenge for the p
rogramme team.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Table 5: \tab \tab
ESF Objective 2 - BME outputs achieved against BME targets, February 2005
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par \tab 3.26 \tab Output information for the Objective 3 Programme is
limited to numbers of beneficiaries participating in ESF-funded activity.
The contracted number
for BME beneficiaries in the Objective 3 programme currently exceeds the
new equality target and actually accounts for 56 per cent of the total
beneficiaries projected on programme. The performance to date already
represents 32 per cent of the total benef
iciary target and is predicted to exceed 50 per cent when contracted
projects are completed.
\par \tab 3.27 \tab Unfortunately, information regarding beneficiary
outcomes for BME groups (eg access to employment and qualifications
achieved) has not been made available within the timeframe for this
study.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Table 6: \tab \tab
Objective 3 - BME outputs achieved against BME targets, February 2005
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par }{\f44\cf1 Summary
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 3.28 \tab
The analysis of funding programmes is constrained by the type of
information available to inform this study. Not all regener
ation spend can be disaggregated below the borough level, for example to
wards or census output areas. In addition, it is not possible to identify
spend in relation to beneficiary groups, or by ethnicity. The information
currently available is only suffic
ient to produce a basic analysis of the distribution of funding across
London\rquote s boroughs.
\par \tab 3.29 \tab On the basis of the data provided we can conclude
that regeneration funding is strongly linked to measures of deprivation,
at the borough level. However, it is
 not possible to draw firm conclusions on whether BME communities receive
either less or more funding than one would expect from their level of
deprivation. Further investigation is required to properly assess how
regeneration funding is allocated to dive
rse communities. This would require funding bodies to develop their
information systems to record actual spend at a finer geographical level
(below the borough), and show which communities are the actual
beneficiaries of particular funding streams.

\par \tab 3.30 \tab
The output information provided for a limited number of programmes
suggests that BME groups are positively benefiting from regeneration
investment. However, information sources and monitoring processes were
not sufficient to enable a robust assessment, ei
ther longitudinally (over time) or between different BME groups.
\par \tab 3.31 \tab The analysis of existing data cannot state with any
authority whether regeneration programmes are benefiting some or all BME
communities. A greater degree of detail in the funding data
might help prove or disprove disproportionality in the allocation of
funding at the local level. However, with the data currently available
all we can state with certainty is that regeneration spend is strongly
linked to deprived boroughs.
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\fs24\cf1
\par }{\f1\cf1 \tab 4 \tab key issues and evidence of good practice
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Introduction
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.1 \tab
This section presents the key issues arising from the qualitative
research, which has been conducted to variously support, explain and
challenge the quantitative analysis of regeneration funding programmes.
 Our approach explores the experiences of different stakeholders and
their differing perceptions about the impact, which this investment is
having upon London\rquote
s BME communities. The findings have been informed by a series of
exploratory focus groups with relevant stakeholders and three area-based
case studies.
\par \tab 4.2 \tab The focus groups, which we conducted at the beginning
of the study aimed to test initial assumptions about the distribution of
regeneration funding in London\rquote s BME communities and to formulate
research questions to be explored in the study. Four focus groups were
conducted with representatives from strategic partners, agencies and
funders, and BME groups engaged in the regeneration process in London.
\par }\pard \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 {\f1\cf1 \tab 4.3 \tab The case studies are comparative and
we
re selected to represent the experiences of regeneration in different
ethnic groups across London, including:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
the Bangladeshi community in the City Fringe Wards of Tower Hamlets - an
area of high regeneration and high BME population
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the African / Caribbean
community in the Elephant and Castle area of Southwark - an area of high
regeneration and high BME population
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the Indian community in
Hounslow - an area of low regeneration and high BME population.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.4 \tab
The qualitative research identified a number of key issues including
evidence of where initiatives have both benefited and failed local BME
communities. The full case studies can be found in Supplementary Paper 2
on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.

\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Identifying BME communities
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Understanding the needs of specific BME communities
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.5 \tab The first issu
e, strongly identified by all stakeholders in focus groups and case study
interviews, is the requirement for policy-makers and those delivering
regeneration programmes to understand the needs of different BME
communities. It is essential that all partners

acquire greater knowledge about different ethnic groups and implement a
more segmented approach to service delivery as part of the regeneration
agenda. Clearly, different communities have different experiences and
needs. Interventions need to recognise th
e differences between new and established migrant communities as well as
cultural and faith differences. A \lquote \rquote one-size-fits-
all\rquote approach is inappropriate for the effective targeting of
disadvantaged communities.
\par \tab 4.6\tab The area-based emphasis or geographica
l targeting within regeneration has also been recognised by stakeholders
as a potential barrier to benefiting more dispersed BME communities.
Targeting regeneration funding in locations where particular communities
are concentrated might mean that more di
spersed communities, with insufficient numbers to warrant an area-based
approach, will miss out on support.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Improving information
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.7 \tab
Stakeholders recognise that target-setting and monitoring is evolving
although important differences between BME communit
ies continue to be masked by current information sources. The need for
further disaggregation of data to reflect the segmentation of BME
communities is required in order to set and monitor against accurate
targets.
\par \tab 4.8 \tab The LDA has made improvements in m
onitoring programmes and now sets BME targets for all programmes
according to the ethnic groupings identified by the 2001 Census. The LDA
will be expanding its monitoring categories next year to provide more
detailed information about project benefits for
 specific BME communities. In addition the LDA is now trying to apply a
system of \lquote tagging\rquote spend against strategic priorities and
equality themes to better account for both capital and revenue projects
in relation to the EDS.
\par \tab 4.9 \tab However, there are a n
umber of other programmes where BME outputs are not captured at this
level of detail. Most funding programmes, including the LDA, are
presently unable to account for spend at the local area level (e.g. ward
/ output area) which militates against a finer g
rained analysis of area based interventions, in relation to populations
and indices of deprivation.
\par \tab 4.10 \tab An analysis of the involvement of BME organisations
in regeneration programmes is not possible at present. This is another
area where information coul
d be improved. Effective management of the supply chain requires further
information about providers. Again the LDA has started to implement a
monitoring system to record equality data about the provider base but
this practice is not common to all partner
s in the regeneration sector.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Target setting
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.11\tab
Key performance indicators for regeneration and renewal programmes,
including PSA floor targets, do not sufficiently assess improvement
between different BME groups and between different areas. Many partne
rs - especially BME organisations - would like to set finer grain targets
for ethnicity, for example, between Black African and Caribbean claimants
and all other claimants. Jobcentre Plus collects data about the ethnicity
of Job Seekers Allowance claimant
s and the presentation of claimant information is clearly within their
gift to provide. However, there are issues about the quality of this data
and its statistical reliability, which have prevented this information
from being publicly available.
\par \tab 4.12 \tab It is further recognised the statistical reliability
of other sources of information such as the Labour Force Survey data are
constrained by small sample sizes which prevent appropriate target
setting at the local level.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Engagement of BME communities
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Consultation
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.13 \tab
The lack of awareness by policy-makers and those delivering the policies
about the needs of different BME communities, identified by this
research, suggests that local consultation has been either insufficient
or ineffective. Many BME groups
interviewed as part of this study felt that regeneration too often
appears as something that is \lquote done\rquote to BME communities and
the findings in the case studies would support this view.
\par \tab 4.14 \tab There is, however, other case study evidence from
both the Commun
ity Cohesion programme in Hounslow and the Community Empowerment Network
in Tower Hamlets, which demonstrates good practice in the development of
consultation processes and the involvement of local BME communities. The
evidence-based approach to revise th
e Tower Hamlets Regeneration Strategy is another example of local
consultation which is culturally specific and which target particular
groups within communities in order to customise regeneration programmes
to meet identified needs.
\par \tab 4.15 \tab However, good pr
actice with regard to community engagement is not fully embedded either
across or within London boroughs. The City Fringe Partnership, which
includes a number of wards in Tower Hamlets, has developed a City Growth
strategy, which has been produced without
involvement from the Bangladeshi business community, although one of the
stated aims is to capitalise and support the potential of BME enterprise.
While local stakeholders recognise that this is not a deliberate action
to exclude BME engagement, indeed no

businesses have been consulted in the development of the overall
strategy, it is nevertheless seen as indicative of the regeneration
process, that BME involvement in the development of policy and strategy
can be too readily overlooked15. However, consulta
tion and engagement with businesses from all communities is now beginning
to take place through the formation of industry groups (Cluster Action
Groups) and their production of industry plans (Sector Investment Plans).
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Consultation: Community Cohesion in H
ounslow: Meeting the Challenge
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
Hounslow was awarded funding in 2003 from the GOL to develop a Community
Cohesion programme. In order to understand better the disenfranchised
sections of the community, a youth consultation was commissioned to
provide an i
nsight about the experiences of being a young person in Hounslow.
\par \tab \tab The report of the consultation includes detailed findings
of the consultation demonstrating the key concerns of Hounslow\rquote s
diverse youth: Somali, East African, Arab, Kosovan, Albanian and
white young men and women gave their views on their sense of belonging
and their ideas for improving services such as education, health and
social services, and community safety. The consultation was used to
develop an action plan, which was mainstreamed
into the work of all departments in the council.
\par \tab \tab Hounslow has continued with this mainstreaming approach
and has just produced its draft Corporate Equality and Community Cohesion
Plan which sets out departmental equality plans from 2005 to 2008. The
one
s pertaining to race equality form the council\rquote
s Race Equality Plan and consist of key priorities and detailed actions
to meet them, which include good practice projects that target BME
communities. The council continues to research the needs of its divers
e communities and has just funded an organisation to produce a needs
analysis of the Somali community.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Partnership representation
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.16 \tab
There is a view, expressed by some stakeholders, that BME groups are
under-represented in the formulation of policy and
 strategy as well as the general decision-making process in regeneration
programmes, which has a direct effect on how priorities and processes are
developed and implemented. Many BME groups feel that they have little
influence and want to see greater BME
representation at the strategic level, such as on LSPs and on the boards
of regeneration agencies such as New Deal for Communities. Improved
representation will help translate overall equality objectives into
specific policies targeting BME communities.

\par \tab 4.17 \tab Processes by which individuals and organisations come
to represent BME views are often perceived as lacking appropriate
transparency and accountability. Some BME organisations view \lquote
getting a seat round the table\rquote
 as critical, but cannot see the mechanisms through which these seats are
allocated. This lack of transparency can mean that the wider BME
community views some BME appointments to boards as \lquote
unrepresentative\rquote .
\par \tab 4.18 \tab The case studies demonstrated both good and bad
practice in this respect.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Partnership representation: Tower Hamlets
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
Almost 70 per cent of current elected members on Tower Hamlets Borough
Council are from the Asian (mainly Bangladeshi) community. This
represents a significant over-representation in local government by the
Asia
n community, which accounts for approximately 36 per cent of the total
population. Similarly, the Bangladeshi community is also well represented
within most partnership structures in the borough, including the Local
Strategic Partnership. There are curren
tly three BME representatives on the City Fringe Partnership, one of whom
is from the Bangladeshi community.
\par \tab \tab Nevertheless, one of the main successes within Tower
Hamlets has been the development of transparent and representative
partnership structures. A
lthough there are no specific targets for levels of representation by
different ethnic groups within the various Local Strategic Partnership
groups and fora, some partners feel that this is a measure of how well
equality issues have become embedded in pra
ctice, a contributing factor to Tower Hamlets being awarded Beacon Status
for Equality.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Funding and sustainability
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Access to funding
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.19 \tab Access to funding is perceived by m
ost BME organisations as both a key route to and a main barrier to
engagement in the regeneration process. The complexity of different
funding programmes and the lack of integration between them is seen to
disadvantage most BME groups. However, these vie
w
s about access to funding are not unique to BME groups and commonly cited
as a significant barrier to engagement by most smaller voluntary and
community organisations. Although evidence to date suggests that co-
financing has enabled voluntary and communit
y
  organisations to more easily access European funding, information is not
available to support an analysis of take-up by BME organisations, while
many BME groups report that ESF funding has become more, rather than
less, difficult to access as a result of
  the new co-financing arrangements.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Gatekeepers
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.20 \tab
BME groups have identified a series of \lquote gatekeepers\rquote , which
stand between the strategic funding agencies and BME providers.
Gatekeepers include local authorities and LSPs (seen as key gatekeepers
of th
e NRF, SRB and other programmes) and further education colleges, seen as
the gatekeepers of most Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funding. There
are, however, gatekeeping issues from within the BME community that also
need to be addressed as part of this
  process.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Gatekeepers: The Bangladeshi Community in Tower Hamlets
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
There is a view among other minority groups that the Bangladeshi
community is perhaps over-represented within various fora and networks in
the borough. There is also an awareness of a grow
ing generational gap within the Bangladeshi community itself, with
traditional Bangladeshi national politics played out and condensed within
the borough by elders of the \lquote first generation\rquote
 migrant community to the detriment of local issues, which concern y
ounger generations. These disproportional influences have led to problems
of gatekeeping by dominant personalities and more established Bangladeshi
organisations. The degree to which more outward-facing members of the
Bangladeshi community are represented
 within local partnership structures is an issue which the Bangladeshi
community will need to address for itself, although it is envisaged that
the improvement in transparent and elective structures which have been
introduced as part of the LSP\rquote
s Community Empowerment Network will contribute to more representative
and accountable decision-making.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Section 106
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.21 \tab
There is an uneven use of Section 106 agreements, across London boroughs.
This planning measure is used to secure social benefits for communities
 from large-scale developments. The processes for Section 106 spend are
not always clear to the local communities who could stand to benefit
considerably, and again this issue is not confined to BME groups.
However, there are some examples of good practic
e in relation to Section 106 and the procurement process (including
Brent, Newham and Hounslow), which could be shared and transferred more
effectively across London.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Section 106 Review in Hounslow
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
There are significant physical developments across Houns
low, including the town centre developments of Feltham, Hounslow and
Brentford. The borough has had great success in gaining Section 106
agreements with developers and some of these have funded regeneration
projects, which either will or have had direct b
enefit to BME communities. For example, one is a Job Brokerage Project
which targets disadvantaged groups, including BME communities, and one is
the proposed multi-purpose hall adjacent to the Civic Centre which will
be able to host large \line
Asian weddings.
\par \tab \tab
In June 2003, the council started a process of reviewing its Section 106
policy and procedures. The process revealed a concern among members that
they be consulted adequately and the fact that they were keen to ensure
that contributions are used to deve
lop area-based priorities. Officers mentioned that consultation across
departments was inconsistent, resulting in the fact that the planning
case officers were not provided with a full picture of potential claims
on Section 106 from service areas within t
h
e council. The review has resulted in a stocktake of current
applications, a new proforma and database, and more streamlined process
including a better monitoring system. Currently guidelines are being
developed for both developers and the community so th
at they will be clearer on the parameters of Section 106.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Short-term funding
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.22 \tab
The short-term nature of regeneration funding programmes offers no
guarantee for the continuity of provision, and with many BME
organisations struggling to secure mainstream
  funding, valuable services are often lost. The failure to provide a
successor to the Cityside Regeneration Programme represents a key
strategic failure for many partners in Tower Hamlets and the Bangladeshi
community. The failure to secure the Ethnic Mi
nority Enterprise Partnership (EMEP), a local business support service,
with mainstream funding is a notable example of how key agencies have
struggled to ensure the continuation of valuable and culturally specific
activity.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Gaining an asset base
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.23 \tab The
re is a view, particularly among BME groups, that greater involvement in
delivery by BME-owned organisations would result in better outcomes for
BME people. However, it is also felt that the capacity for BME
organisations to engage in delivery is under-de
v
eloped and that too few BME organisations have successfully capitalised
through regeneration funding, in terms of gaining an asset base (through
the ownership of buildings and premises) to enable this. Organisations
that have managed this are deemed excep
t
ional and have gained in their capacity and longer-term stability as a
result, especially where assets can help raise income. Further analysis
is required to help quantify this position, although current information
systems held by regeneration partners d
o not easily allow for this form of analysis.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
The impact of commissioning
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.24 \tab
There is concern among smaller BME organisations about the trend towards
commissioning frameworks within regeneration programmes. While it is
generally recognised that this app
roach offers a more strategic approach to procurement, many groups feel
that the process favours larger organisations and can lead to monopolies
within the provider base which excludes opportunities for local community
provision.
\par \tab 4.25 \tab There is also a vi
ew that larger voluntary and statutory providers pay little more than lip
service to delivering benefits to BME communities and lack the necessary
knowledge and competencies to engage with and deliver to BME communities.
Many BME groups feel that the proc
u
rement policies should encourage mainstream organisations to collaborate
with, or sub-contract to BME-led organisations. There is little evidence
from the case study areas of changes to public procurement in opening up
contracting of local services to loc
ally owned organisations.
\par \tab 4.26 \tab Commissioning partners do not hold the necessary data
to inform an analysis of success rates by BME groups in competitive
bidding processes, which contributes to perceptions of
disproportionality. The move towards commission
ing will need to ensure that BME organisations are included in
frameworks, and that clear procedures are introduced to assess the
capability of organisations to either involve BME organisations in
delivery or provide effective services to BME communities.

\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Capacity building and community support
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Capacity issues
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.27 \tab
Many of the issues facing BME-led organisations are the same as those
facing other, particularly smaller voluntary and community sector
organisations and centre around the constraints of ope
rating with limited financial and human resources. Some smaller
organisations can struggle to deliver within overly bureaucratic output-
related and time-limited funding programmes. However, many BME
organisations feel that funders operate with a general
p
erception that all BME organisations have limited capacity, or have
capacity problems. BME organisations see this as a barrier preventing
them from securing larger grants or contracts. Additionally, when BME
organisations do secure larger contracts, they
consider that the funders\rquote perception of capacity problems can
lead to far greater scrutiny of BME organisations than that experienced
by others.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par Support to BME organisations
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.28\tab
The support available to the voluntary and community sector in general
and
BME organisations in particular is varied. By and large support
organisations, including Councils for Voluntary Services and other
bodies, are constrained by their own capacity to meet demand. There are
few dedicated support services for specific BME grou
ps offering technical assistance with regard to the regeneration agenda.
There is a view amongst some BME groups and organisations that more
dedicated and specialist support services are required.
\par \tab 4.29 \tab In recognition of the relative under developed state
of support services available to community groups Hounslow Council\rquote
s Community Development and Regeneration Unit offer unrestricted core
grants to a number of voluntary and community organisations for up to
four years. The main purpose is to provide a bas
ic financial stability from which they can secure external funding for
future development. There are no specific targets for the proportion of
BME groups funded, but it is understood they are well represented in the
funding.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
BME networks
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.30 \tab
BME networks and second-tier organisations have a role to play in
supporting BME groups both to develop as organisations and to play a
representative role on decision making bodies. In Tower Hamlets the
Minority Ethnic Regeneration Group has a specific re
m
it for engaging with the regeneration and renewal agenda. However, often
BME infrastructure itself is fragmented. In Southwark for example, the
Strategic Ethnic Alliance was established to input BME views to the
Southwark Alliance (the LSP for Southwark)
a
nd sees itself as filling a gap created by the demise of the Southwark
Community Empowerment Network. The CVS for the area, Southwark
Association of Voluntary Organisations also hosts Grassroots Rising, an
initiative funded through NRF to support BME enga
gement in regeneration. Additionally there have been recent meetings
initiated by the Southwark Race Equality Council (SREC) aimed at
developing a BME forum to feed into the SREC\rquote
s role as BME representative on the Southwark Alliance. These BME
networks app
ear to have only recently been developed and may therefore lack the
experience to provide a strong and effective voice in local regeneration.
The apparent difficulties experienced by the voluntary and community
sector infrastructure in providing a coheren
t and unified voice for BME regeneration seems likely to be one of the
factors contributing to the current conflicts about BME engagement in
Southwark\rquote s regeneration.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Enterprise and business support
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.31\tab
There is a prevailing view within the BME business c
ommunity that the mainstream model of business support does not
sufficiently address the diversity of needs within BME-owned businesses
or understand the segmented and often niche markets in which BME business
is involved. This issue has been recognised b
y
  Business Link London who were involved in the consultation for this
study and expressed the view that business support services need to be
more culturally specific. However, we have not identified any evidence to
suggest that this awareness has yet been
translated into practice.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Bangladeshi business activity in Tower Hamlets
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
In contrast to low employment and skills, the high level of
entrepreneurship within the Bangladeshi community has recently been
highlighted in the government\rquote s consultation for propo
sals on a Local Enterprise Growth Initiative. The need to improve
dedicated business support service for local Bangladeshi-owned business
has been identified as a key area for development within the community.
The Ethnic Minority Enterprise Partnership (E
M
EP), established by Cityside Regeneration, provides dedicated business
support service within the area. It is, however, operating outside of
mainstream business support services and struggling to engage strategic
funders, including the LDA, in delivering
m
ore culturally appropriate services to Bangladeshi businesses. Given the
evidence of high levels of entrepreneurship within the community and the
potential for local business growth, intervention in this area should
represent a strategic priority for all
partners.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Monitoring and evaluation
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Monitoring
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1133\ita
p0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.32\tab
There is general agreement that monitoring systems and information need
to be improved but concerns, from both funding agencies and delivery
organisations, that there are insufficient resources to suppor
t this. Monitoring should be considered an integral function in the
management of projects. However, many smaller BME organisations lack the
staff to develop and implement effective monitoring processes and this is
a potential barrier to participation in
regeneration programmes.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Monitoring in Aylesbury New Deal for Communities (NDC)

\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
As a key action in the Aylesbury NDC Equalities Strategy and Action Plan,
a new monitoring system has been put in place to collect and review more
detailed information on BM
E beneficiaries and outputs and other equalities information. The new
system is an example of good practice in this area. It is designed to
provide the NDC with far more detailed information about service take-up
and achievements by different ethnic grou
p
s in the area, enabling a re-targeting of resources to address under-
representation where necessary. Ethnic monitoring categories based on the
Office for National Statistics categories have been expanded to include
significant local populations including
Turkish, Somali and Latin American. Forms for monitoring ethnicity (and
other equalities information) have been developed to collect information
in the following areas:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 project beneficiaries
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 NDC staff
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 NDC Board Members
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 contractors, consultants
and project managers
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 complaints.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
The Aylesbury NDC monitoring process is supported by a dedicated
Equalities Monitoring Officer, who supports projects to collect the
required information and is responsible for data input and analysis.
Further support
has been provided through a customised Equalities Monitoring Training
Event in February 2005 attended by NDC staff and project providers.
\par \tab \tab The Equalities Monitoring Training Event identified some
of the barriers to data collection, the key one being that staff felt
\lquote overwhelmed\rquote
  by the amount of information they were required to collect. The
Aylesbury NDC Equalities Officer is confident that these early \lquote
teething problems\rquote will soon be overcome.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Measuring impact
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.33 \tab There is a lack of consistency betw
een mainstream and regeneration programmes in defining and counting
outputs, particularly around job assists. For example, the LDA, the LSCs
and Jobcentre Plus have different definitions of a \lquote job
output\rquote
. This has inevitable consequences in assessing the overall contribution
of regeneration programmes to local and regional performance.
\par \tab 4.34 \tab Partners acknowledge the difficulties of assessing
the impact of regeneration initiatives, and in particular of identifying
benefits for individuals from capital sch
emes. There are numerous sources of programme information, which can, to
varying degrees, quantify outputs achieved by BME groups. There is also
evidence from the three case study areas that improvements are being
achieved against floor targets. However,
there is no evidence of a systematic approach to evaluating the effect of
regeneration and renewal programmes on BME communities, which at a
minimum would see an explicit consideration of BME impacts and equalities
issues included in all evaluations.

\par \tab 4.35 \tab A more robust approach would need to take account of
the positive impacts upon BME communities, which would have been achieved
regardless of specific regeneration interventions.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Measuring impact of the Aylesbury NDC
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab The Aylesbury NDC is being externall
y evaluated as part of the national programme evaluation commissioned by
the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. The evaluation includes an explicit
consideration and assessment of community cohesion, equalities and
engagement. The most recent evaluation report (
2004) highlights the following:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 \lquote
overall, the available evidence suggests that there is a good level of
involvement of people from BME groups within the partnership itself and
that they also benefit from projects\rquote
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the Equalities Strategy is
considered to be \lquote broad ranging and well thought through\rquote
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 \lquote progress has been
made on improving equalities outcomes and should continue to be
made\rquote .
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
The evaluation report suggests that the Aylesbury NDC could be regarded
as being on Level 3 of the Local Government Equality Standard.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Useful indicators
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.36 \tab
Many stakeholders agree that measuring impact should also account for BME
involvement in the process of regeneration and offered the following
indicators as examples:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
the number of BME companies securing contracts to manage or implement
capital regeneration schemes
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the number of BME
companies employed as sub-contractors or suppliers on capital
regeneration schemes
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the number of BME people
recruited to deliver elements of regeneration programmes such as surveys
or local consultation
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the number of BME
organisations securing funding to deliver regeneration initiatives and
how much this funding amounts to
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the proportion of funding
applications from BME organisations that are successful compared with all
applications to the same funding programmes
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 the proportion of BME
policy makers and decision makers involved in regeneration at the
strategic level.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.37 \tab
However, it is recognised that although this information could be
captured, there are significant cost implications to be considered for
both projects and programme management.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Summary
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 4.38 \tab
The evidence arising from the qualitati
ve research suggests that there are a number of successes regarding the
involvement and engagement of BME communities in the regeneration
process. There are also signs from the case study areas that improvements
are being made against many of the key perf
ormance indicators and that BME communities are indeed benefiting from
local investment.
\par \tab 4.39\tab However, there is still significant progress to be
made and a number of challenges to be faced. A fundamentally improved
understanding by public agencies about t
he different needs of diverse BME communities is essential to inform
effective target setting and policy interventions. Improved information
sources are also vital to understanding the impact which regeneration
programmes may be having at the local level
and whether area-based interventions are contributing to improving
trends.
\par \tab 4.40 \tab The findings of the area case studies demonstrated
some mixed practice with regards to most of the key issues identified.
What is clear at this stage is that development is n
ot uniform across London boroughs, partnership areas and BME communities,
regardless of deprivation or sources of regeneration funding available.
While there are many examples of how regeneration has benefited BME
communities, this practice is not widespr
ead and there is no systematic approach to transferring and embedding the
evidence of good practice across London\rquote s various regeneration
initiatives.
\par \tab 4.41 \tab There is also some evidence to suggest that the
investment of significant regeneration funds can ha
ve a negative impact upon community cohesion. The absence of significant
regeneration investment in Hounslow has enabled a more strategic approach
to engaging BME communities in partnership structures, mainstreaming
services and integrating equality targe
t
s. By contrast the experience of the Elephant and Castle development in
Southwark highlights many of the problems with short-term but highly
complex regeneration interventions, which can displace attention from the
wider objectives of improving overall in
vestment and the delivery of mainstream services for the benefit of BME
communities.
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\fs24\cf1
\par
\par }{\f1\cf1 5 \tab \tab discussion emerging from the research
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Introduction
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.1 \tab
The qualitative research explored a number of issues and themes, which
are commonly raised when discussing t
he involvement of BME communities in the regeneration process. Some of
these issues are not directly related to the aims of this study, and
cannot be adequately explained by the analysis of regeneration spends in
London. However, many of these discussions
 have relevance and significance for strategic partners in how future
regeneration programmes may benefit BME communities.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Understanding the purpose of regeneration
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.2 \tab
Regeneration is by no means a self-evident term. It can often mean
different things t
o different people, organisations and communities. This in turn can have
repercussions in terms of perceived impact and whether programmes are
effectively measured against their stated aims and objectives. Within the
context of this study, regeneration ha
s been narrowly defined in terms of the various area-based funding
programmes administered across London by the GLA partner organisations.
\par \tab 5.3 \tab In recent years \lquote regeneration\rquote has
become increasingly interchangeable with \lquote renewal\rquote
 while latterly both have become conflated as part of the sustainable
communities agenda. It is sufficient to say that regeneration denotes a
set of discourses, strategies, policies and interventions that aim to
tackle poverty and deprivation within commu
nities, be they geographically or otherwise defined.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Subsidiarity - communities and local solutions
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.4 \tab
Regeneration in the new context has therefore been more closely aligned
in policy terms to \lquote virtuous circles\rquote and the need to
provide \lquote joined up solutions\rquote
 to a complex set of social problems. This in turn has required improved
multi-agency working at the local level and an increased emphasis on
community involvement, with communities playing an active role in
partnership working.
\par \tab 5.5 \tab \-\-Responsibility for regeneration and renewal has
increasingly been passed down to the local level, where local \lquote
partnerships\rquote
 are seen, as the locus for driving locally-owned solutions. As part of
this process considerable emphasis has been placed on capacity building m
easures to improve participation, local empowerment and self-
determination. There is an assumption at the heart of regeneration policy
that development economics can deliver greater outcomes for disadvantaged
communities. It is within this context that ma
ny of the key stakeholders, interviewed during this research, would like
to see greater progress by BME communities in all aspects of the
regeneration process, including the delivery of local services.
\par \tab 5.6 \tab This research has not attempted to prove or dispr
ove the additional benefits of locally-owned service delivery and we
recognise that effective regeneration is not necessarily dependent upon
these factors. However, we have observed that current measures to equip
BME communities to engage in their own reg
eneration (as expressed in the key London strategies) are insufficiently
developed and that further action is required if these strategies are to
have the transformational effect that policy intends.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Setting targets and measuring performance
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.7 \tab \-\-Perfor
mance targets have long been accepted as a common feature in the delivery
of regeneration programmes and fall into two basic categories:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
output and expenditure targets
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 impact measures or \lquote
outcomes\rquote .
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.8 \tab
Output definitions largely relate to through
put or input measures (eg number of participants benefiting from the
activity) as well as the direct outputs resulting from the action (eg
number of jobs and qualifications achieved) and total costs. This
research has highlighted the need to monitor progr
amme \lquote inputs\rquote , \lquote outputs\rquote and \lquote
expenditure targets\rquote to more accurately account for the
heterogeneity of BME populations in London as well as local area
differences.
\par \tab 5.9 \tab However, measuring performance will require a greater
emphasis on outcomes, by all fund
ing partners and programmes, to adequately measure impact. There remains
much work to improve the use of performance indicators, which need to be
readily measurable and provide a guide to progress towards a
programme\rquote
s ultimate objectives. They also need t
o go beyond the monitoring of outputs and their concentration on
throughput measures. Outcome targets are required which adequately
reflect the disparities in baseline indicators between different ethnic
groups and geographical areas.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Completeness and efficiency
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.10 \tab
Deprivation indices have been used since the early 1970s to target
specific places for additional resource to address gaps in social and
economic performance. This geographical \lquote zoning\rquote or
concentration of area-based initiatives remains a ke
y feature of UK urban policy and European Structural Funds (Objectives 1
and 2).
\par \tab 5.11 \tab Area-based initiatives have been shown to be more
effective in targeting some sub-groups, than others16. Many initiatives
have a high level of completeness in the spat
ial targeting of deprived areas but can also be relatively inefficient in
targeting deprived individuals. There is always a trade-off between
targeting geographical areas and more disparate communities of interest.
Consequently, some deprived BME communit
ies in more affluent London boroughs can lose out in this process, as the
Hounslow case study demonstrates.
\par \tab 5.12 \tab There is evidence to suggest that programmes should
more effectively target individuals and groups, wherever possible,
depending on the type o
f intervention (for example, employment and skills) and the costs
benefits of producing complex targeting mechanisms.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Mainstreaming or ring-fencing
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.13 \tab
Regeneration and renewal programmes help lever additional public and
private sector funding into depr
ived areas. At the same time they aim to improve the effectiveness of
existing mainstream provision. It has been suggested by some stakeholders
interviewed during this research that current regeneration programmes
should aim to do both in relation to Lond
on\rquote s BME communities.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Summary
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.14 \tab
There are a number of ideas and values, which underlie partner
perceptions about the impact of the regeneration process on BME
communities in London, namely that regeneration and renewal should:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 enable community invo
lvement by building the capacity of BME communities to directly
contribute to the regeneration process
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 place greater emphasis on
outcomes in setting targets and measuring performance
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 more effectively target
BME groups and individuals to both lever additional funding and maximise
existing mainstream provision.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 5.15 \tab
These views are consistent with the broader policy intent for
regeneration and renewal.
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\fs24\cf1
\par
\par }{\f1\cf1 \tab 6 \tab conclusions and recommendations
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 6.1 \tab A significant percentage of London
\rquote
s BME population live in low income and deprived areas. Despite
investment over a number of years, these areas continue to have higher
rates of unemployment and inactivity, and be in need of continued
physical regeneration. Furthermore, not sufficient pro
gress has been made on closing the gaps between these areas and the rest
of London.
\par \tab 6.2 \tab This report has examined the level and nature of
regeneration spending, as they affect BME communities. The key questions
are:
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
Has the Londonwide distribution of regeneration funding tackled
deprivation in BME communities?
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 Do local spending
priorities target deprivation among BME communities?
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
Do the nature of the funded activities tackle deprivation among \line BME
communities?
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 6.3 \tab From the study of spending,
focus groups, and case studies, a number \line of key findings emerge
that will need to be addressed by London \line policy-makers.
\par \tab 6.4 \tab First, while the spatial relationship between poverty
and ethnicity is highly significant it is clear from our analysis that
poverty is the principal driver in the allocation of regeneration funds
across London\rquote
s boroughs. It would appear that regeneration funds target the most
deprived boroughs in London, to a large extent. If deprivation in BME
communities is not being sufficient
ly tackled this would imply that it is either the distribution and use of
funding at the sub-borough level, or an even stronger focussing of
funding is required, or both.
\par \tab 6.5 \tab Second, despite evidence of improved performance in
some London boroughs indica
tors continue to show differences between ethnic groups in skills,
employment and earnings. If these gaps are to be closed then regeneration
funding needs to be effectively invested at the local level and the
spending on BME communities\rquote
  needs to be propor
tionate to higher levels of disadvantage. The contribution regeneration
spending may make in closing these gaps is currently difficult to
quantify, and the consequences of additional data collection on both
funded organisations and funders may not make fu
rther measurement appropriate or acceptable.
\par \tab 6.6 \tab Third, irrespective of the level of funding there
seems to be a general scepticism within BME communities that they are not
getting sufficient regeneration funds and not properly involved in
determining spe
nding priorities. Linked to this is the view that BME-led organisations
are under resourced and there is little encouragement for BME
organisations to be contracted to deliver services to their local
community. Irrespective of the level of funding there i
s
  a widespread view, particularly among BME regeneration stakeholders,
that strategy and funding priorities need to have a greater input from
BME communities if they are to effectively address BME issues. It could
be that closing the gap is as much about h
ow funds are spent and not just the actual level of funds.
\par \tab 6.7 \tab Fourth, it is not clear that measuring the impact of
regeneration funds on BME communities is a priority or a shared
objective. Some regeneration funders (LDA) are starting to set specific
BME
 targets and monitor outputs and evaluate outcomes against these.
However, other agencies (eg. Jobcentre Plus and LSC) are continuing to
operate programmes without specific BME targets and are not evaluating
programme impact against specific BME targets.

\par \tab 6.8 \tab The task for policy-makers is therefore to find ways
to resolve the conundrum that spending may be broadly proportionate to
deprivation but the gaps between the white and BME populations are not
\line sufficiently closing.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 London\rquote s distribution of regeneration funding

\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 6.9 \tab
On the basis of available figures, the analysis at the Borough-level
shows a strong positive relationship between deprivation and the
allocation of regeneration funding. If this relationship is not leading
to a sufficient narrowing of
the gap between BME and white populations then the options are:
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
Ethnicity should play more of a role in determining funding decisions at
the London level, with the intent that more funds are concentrated on
ethnic minority communities.
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 Local authorities and
local partnerships should better assess the use of regeneration funding
in closing local gaps, and determine whether different actions would be
more effective.
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 6.10 \tab
It would help determine the best way forward if it were easier to
determine impact at the sub-borough level. Unfortunately, there are
limits to existing data that makes assessment of impact at sub-borough-
level difficult. The main limitations are:

\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
the under-representation and classification of BME populations in census
data
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 population turnover in
regeneration areas and the continuing influx of new migrants to
regeneration areas
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 changes to the Indices of
Multiple Deprivation, which prevents reliable benchmarking of progress
against indicators
\par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
the lack of available funding data below the borough level.
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 6.11 \tab
The analysis of funding programmes is constrained by the type of
information available to inform this study. Consequently, analysis at
only a borough-level may mask a breakdown within boroughs of the
relationship between
  deprivation, ethnicity and spending, especially for small geographical
areas or dispersed BME communities. For example, some evidence suggests
that more affluent boroughs may have small concentrations of deprivation
among BME communities, and which are n
ot benefiting from regeneration spending.
\par \tab 6.12 \tab It would be a major exercise to conduct a Londonwide
assessment at the sub-borough level. Data currently held for each borough
by the LDA and GOL cannot easily be disaggregated with any degree of
accuracy bel
ow the borough level. This level of detail would be required to establish
whether the relationship between deprivation, ethnicity and spending
still persisted at the sub-borough level. The extent of additional
monitoring data that would have to be collect
ed from funded organisations and local authorities may mean that it is
impractical to have a detailed Londonwide impact assessment for local
areas.
\par \tab 6.13 \tab It may be more feasible to adopt a targeted approach
to investigating the distribution of funds. If th
e principal objective is to close the opportunity gap then concentrating
on the larger deprived BME communities is particularly important.
Investigating how these boroughs could collaborate with the LDA and GOL
in the development of better measurement wou
ld seem to be the next step.
\par \tab 6.14 \tab This will, by definition, not deal with those smaller
concentrations in more affluent boroughs, and other methods will be
needed to ensure they are not further marginalised.
\par \tab 6.15 \tab Finally, there are a number of issues r
egarding the measurement of impact, which are beyond the ability of local
or London partners to change. Particularly, the limitations of existing
information sources in assessing differentials between BME communities in
relation to employment, claimant ra
t
es, inactivity, income levels and skills. These are constraints which
national agencies (eg. Jobcentre Plus and the Learning and Skills
Council) and government will need to address. It is important therefore
that the GOL and GLA considers how these constr
aints can be addressed.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Recommendations
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 12. \tab The GLA should:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
ensure that strategic objectives and policies for BME communities are
measurable, which will involve a review of appropriate indicators linked
to existing and potential objectives
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 oversee the development of
a framework by London strategic partners that enables the targeting of
funds on strategic objectives and the identification of impact.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 13. \tab
The LDA should take the lead in developing an acceptable monitoring
system that can be implemented in target boroughs, including:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
monitoring of funding to BME organisations and businesses
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 beneficiary monitoring to
record both ethnicity and postcode for participants of all funding
programmes.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 14. \tab The LDA should develop detailed guida
nce on the evaluation and assessment of regeneration impacts on BME
communities, and encourage its use in programme and project evaluations.
Such guidance would include:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
a greater emphasis on outcomes by all funding partners to adequately
measure programme impact
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 monitoring of
participation and outcomes according to ethnicity
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 monitoring of BME
organisations and BME-owned businesses involved in the delivery of
regeneration initiatives, including the success rate and size of contract
where relevant
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 development of processes
to audit the competence of mainstream organisations to achieve BME
outputs.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 15. \tab
The GOL should identify the barriers in national funding programmes to
implementing a London framework for targeting and monitoring funding.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Improving impact
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 6.16 \tab
The case studies have provided mixed evidence at the local level of
engagement and positive impact. There are examples of where regeneration
is having a positive effect on BME communities and others where it is
not. There are no apparent
  mechanisms for sharing information about effective approaches, or how
regeneration interventions are being mainstreamed, or how overall
investment is improving the delivery of mainstream services for the
benefit of BME communities.
\par \tab 6.17 \tab The information
provided for a limited number of area-based programmes suggests that some
BME groups are positively benefiting from regeneration investment in
terms of broad outcome measures such as entry into training. There are
also signs from some of the case study ar
e
as that real improvements are being made against many of the key
performance indicators. However, there is also evidence to suggest that
in some areas BME groups are not benefiting in line with agreed targets,
particularly around business support and jobs
  created. There is also evidence to suggest that where the investment of
significant regeneration funds takes place without race equality
strategies and approaches, this can have a negative impact upon community
cohesion.
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 BME involvement in strategy and in delivery
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 6.18 \tab
Regeneration outcomes cannot always be measured in an objective and
scientific way. As covered above, current information sources are
incomplete and monitoring processes are not sufficient to enable a robust
assessment of whether funding ha
s a tangible impact on closing gaps between white and BME communities,
and between different BME communities.
\par \tab 6.19 \tab This lack of transparency needs to be redressed in
other ways that are \line not wholly reliant on quantitative data. The
emphasis needs to be o
n improving impact through better project and knowledge management,
inclusive decision-making, and innovative service delivery. Improved
transparency should also give BME organisations and communities \line
better access to information about the objectives and impacts of
regeneration programmes.
\par \tab 6.20 \tab The regeneration process also includes the
development planning process. Major developments can have an adverse,
positive or neutral impact on BME communities and this is also something
that could be monitore
d by local authorities. There are examples across London of BME
communities benefiting from these processes, either by the use of Section
106 money or by ensuring that the development planning process addresses
the concerns of BME communities.
\par \tab 6.21 \tab Th
e commitment to new approaches in public procurement and the social
benefits derived from the use of Section 106 agreements also vary across
London. Practices are not uniform and only one London local authority has
included BME development partners on a l
ist of several preferred partners for development work on Section 106
sites.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Recommendations
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 16. \tab
The LDA and GOL should examine the extent to which the existing networks
they fund promote sharing of information between regeneration
stakeholders about BME communities and cohesive approaches to
regeneration, including:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 sharing of research findings

\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1   transfer of good practice
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1   mainstreaming of
regeneration projects
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1   improving consultation
with BME communities to help identify need and   differences between
communities
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 appropriate actions to
meet different needs.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 17. \tab
The GLA should actively promote that all appropriate commissioning
frameworks in London include BM
E organisations. The GLA should sponsor work that aims to assess the
capability of public agencies to both involve BME organisations in
delivery and effectively meet the needs of BME communities.
\par \tab 18. \tab The LDA should require its Regeneration Centre of Exce
llence (RCE) to make improving impact for BME communities a priority in
its work programme. The RCE can do this through training for regeneration
staff, seminars, and networking of best practice.
\par }\pard \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 {\f1\cf1 \tab 19. \tab The LDA should also:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1
commission good practice advice notes (with examples) on how communities
can be involved in Section 106 decision-making processes
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 commission a good practice
advice note on the use of equalities impact assessment within the
development planning process.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f43\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 Strategic leadership to close the gap
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 6.22 \tab
London strategies have a relatively low ambition in closing the
employment and wealth gap. Within the main regeneration strategies there
are no more than two policy areas that explicitly target BME groups and,
in most cases, the
 aims and objectives and targets are either vague or pay insufficient
regard to differentials between BME groups.
\par \tab 6.23 \tab There appears to be little overt connection between
London strategies and those of NRF, Jobcentre Plus, and the Learning &
Skills Coun
cil. The main BME targets included in London strategies are to increase
employment rates and reduce unemployment for BME communities. However,
there is no Londonwide plan to specifically address how this is achieved
and which include Jobcentre Plus and th
e Learning & Skills Council as the primary funders of labour market
interventions.
\par \tab 6.24 \tab Arguably, achieving the employment targets in the
Economic Development Strategy and The London Plan could have a
considerable impact on the economic position of BME co
mmunities and the perception by BME communities of regeneration funding.
The critical next step needs to be an action plan with specific targets
that can drive funding decisions and (where they exist) internal targets
within organisations.
\par \tab 6.25 \tab The level
 of support given to BME groups to participate in the planning and
delivery of regeneration is presently inadequate given the scale of the
problem. The support agencies and networks that have been developed to
provide this are themselves constrained by a
lack of resource and capacity.
\par \tab 6.26 \tab There are a number of steps that strategic
regeneration partners can take to increase the effectiveness of their
impact on BME communities in London. First, they should jointly examine
their plans and targets to ensure
 that they are complementary. Second, they could agree on high-level
strategic targets which they can work towards. Third, these high-level
targets should be backed up by an action plan that details partner
contributions and milestones against which progr
ess can be measured.
\par \tab 6.27 \tab This process could lead to the signing of an \lquote
accord\rquote
 between the different agencies. Presently, those few specific targets
relating to BME communities are subsumed within the wealth of detail of
London strategies. The advantage
 of a signed accord is that it would make these targets more visible and
would be a public statement of intent by London partners. As suggested
above, the process for arriving at the accord should mean that partners
have to examine their own targets and h
ow they can work together - this, in itself, is an important outcome.
\par \tab 6.28 \tab In doing this, partners will need to take a more
segmented approach to target-setting than they have at present. While the
EDS highlights the significant variations in different in
dicators between BME communities, this analysis is not followed through
into specific targets. This is a necessity if, for example, the
employment target is to be met.
\par }\pard\plain \s25\ql \li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0
\f42\fs24\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\f1\cf1
Recommendations
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab 20. \tab
The GLA should initiate a process to lead to the publication of a London
Accord for BME communities by summer 2007.
\par \tab 21. \tab The LDA should take the lead on co-ordinating a
detailed action plan with milestones for measuring progress.
\par }\pard \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 {\f1\cf1 \tab 22. \tab It is recommended that all London
regeneration strategies:
\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1417\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1
133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 take a more segmented a
pproach to target-setting for BME communities to address measurable gaps
between different ethnic groups
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 align targets and
performance indicators between different funding programmes and
initiatives
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 commit to ring-fenced
funding for BME target groups
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 identify support and
technical assistance for BME regeneration networks in London
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 set targets for the
involvement of BME organisations and businesses in the delivery of
regeneration initiatives (e.g. Section 106)
\par }{\cs28\f46\fs12\cf1\up1 n \tab }{\f1\cf1 introduce streamlined
bidding processes and where possible common application forms and
procedures.
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \fi-
1138\li1138\ri0\sb60\sa300\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\tx1133\aspalpha\aspnum\faa
uto\adjustright\rin0\lin1138\itap0
\f42\fs40\cf17\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\fs24\cf1
\par
\par }{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab Appendix 1 - analysis of regeneration spend
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab
The following regression analysis demonstrates the various relationships
between regeneration funding, BME populations and deprivation as detailed
in table 1 below.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 \tab Table A: \tab
London boroughs ranked by BME population density, regeneration funding
and IMD score17.
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par \tab \tab Graph 1 demonstrates the relationship between the
percentage of BME populations in the borough and regeneration spend. This
analysis shows that the level of funding per head in London\rquote
s boroughs increases in relation to the higher percentage of BME
population. However, this is a weak positive relationship, with the model
explaining only 20 per cent of the variation in spending
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 \tab \tab
Funding compared with BME percentage of populations
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par \tab \tab The variation in spending can be thought of as the v
ariation of the model (funding per head and BME percentage of population)
plus the variation of other factors not accounted for by the model (R2).
Here, 20 per cent of the variation is from the model and 80 per cent is
from other factors. A perfect fit wo
uld have 100 per cent explained by the model. If there were no
relationship at all between the variables the model would explain 0 per
cent of the variation. Hence a 20 per cent fit is a weak positive
relationship.
\par \tab \tab Graph 2, below, shows the relationship b
etween regeneration funding per head over the period 1999-2004 and the
Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004. The index we have used is the average
score measure for all output areas at borough level18. The model shows
that the levels of spend increases as d
eprivation increases, but the relationship is not linear. Spending per
head increases progressively faster as deprivation increases.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 \tab \tab
Funding compared with Index of Multiple Deprivation
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par \tab \tab We get a much better model to explain the correlation
between regeneration spends and deprivation using a log relationship, as
is shown in Graph 3. The regression line shows that the Index of Multiple
Deprivation \lquote explains\rquote
  67 per cent of the variation in regeneration funding. If the most
extreme outlier, Havering, is excluded, this relationship improves to
explain 78 per cent of the variation in funding.
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\cf1 \tab \tab
Funding compared with Index of Multiple Deprivation
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s29\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
260\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f43\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f44\fs20\cf1 Key to boroughs in graph
\par }\pard\plain \s26\ql \fi-1134\li1133\ri0\sa300\sl-
300\slmult0\widctlpar\tqr\tx907\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l
in1133\itap0 \f42\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033
{\f1\cf1 \tab \tab When the two
  factors explaining funding (IMD score and proportion of BME population)
are included in the same analysis, the Index of Multiple Deprivation
remains the principal explanatory factor, although BME proportion
improves the model slightly. Factoring BME popu
l
ations in addition to the IMD score improves the proportion of the
funding variance explained (from 67 per cent for the IMD and 20 per cent
for the BME population to 72 per cent for the combination of IMD and BME
population). Therefore including BME popul
ation improves the explanatory power of the model by 5 per cent.
\par \tab \tab It is clear from Table 3 that the Thames Gateway boroughs
of Havering and Bexley are exceptional in so far as they exhibit low
levels of deprivation; low proportions of BME populations and r
elatively high levels of regeneration spend. National priorities, like
Thames Gateway, which would explain higher levels of spending in these
cases, have not been included as an explanatory factor in this analysis.
However, if we exclude the two largest o
utliers (Havering, and Bexley), this further improves the explanation
factor of the model to 81 per cent.
\par \tab \tab The relationship in all analyses shows that the Index of
Multiple Deprivation is the most highly significant factor explaining
variations in regenera
tion spending at borough level, but the proportion BME adds a small
influence. There is a known link between BME proportion of population and
deprivation: areas with higher BME proportion tend to have higher Index
of Multiple Deprivation scores and vice v
ersa. We can use this link to help explain the relationships shown in the
model. Within the model, BME proportion can be thought of as the IMD
score plus a BME factor.
\par \tab \tab Given a greater degree of geographic detail in the funding
data and taking into account
 Thames Gateway funding, it might be possible to prove or disprove
disproportionality in the allocation of funding at the local level.
However, with the data currently available all we can state with
certainty is that regeneration spend is strongly linked
 to deprived boroughs.
\par
\par \tab 1 \tab A Review of Public Expenditure in London, LDA, 2003
\par \tab 2 \tab Making it Happen in Neighbourhoods: The national
strategy for neighbourhood renewal - four years on, Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (ODPM).
\par \tab 3 \tab Ward Data Report - Tower Hamlets Partnership, 2005
\par \tab 4 \tab Labour Force Survey - March 2003 to February 2004
\par \tab 5 \tab GLA, Key Facts on BME People and Public Services in
London, June 2003
\par \tab 6 \tab Labour Force Survey - Winter 2004
\par \tab 7 \tab New Earnings Survey - 2004
\par \tab 8\tab DfES, Research Topic Paper, January 2005
\par \tab 9 \tab Similarly the LDA\rquote s Performance Indicator for the
percentage of the top 5 per cent earners from BME communities has
remained the same (at 26 per cent) between 2003 and 2006 and does not
reflect the need for raising targets.
\par \tab 10 \tab London BME Action Plan, Theme Two, p3
\par \tab 11 \tab LDA - Economic Development Strategy
\par \tab 12 \tab ODPM\rquote s Evaluation of the Low Cost Home Ownership
Programme, identified only one (unnamed) London local authority, which
has included BME development partners o
n a list of several preferred partners for development work on Section106
sites.
\par \tab 13\tab The index we have used is the average score measure for
all output areas at borough level, which would seem to offer a better fit
than the rank of extent and local concentration measures.
\par \tab 14 \tab The Corporation of London has a very low residential
population compared to other London boroughs and has therefore been
removed from the model.
\par
\par \tab 15 \tab The CFP strategy was based on a generic template and
theory provided through the Ci
ty Growth process and its initial stages involved a business audit and an
analysis of key sectors. These were not consulted upon. Cluster Action
Groups for each of the identified sectors are now being established and
businesses are now being asked to join
 / express a view about whether this approach will work in their sectors.
\par \tab 16 \tab Is Targeting Deprived Areas an Effective Means to Reach
Poor People? An assessment of one rationale for area based funding
programmes, Lupton and Tunstall, London School of Economics.
\par \tab 17 \tab The 33 London boroughs have been ranked. 1 = highest
rank.
\par \tab 18 \tab The IMD average score for output areas offers a better
fit than the rank of extent and local concentration measures.
\par Proposal to the LDA: Centre for Regeneration Excellence - Skills and
Training Analysis
\par Centre for\-\--\- Economic & Social Inclusion and Rocket Science UK
Ltd
\par Regeneration in London\rquote s BME Communities
\par Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion and BTEG
\par }} high levels of regeneration spend. National priorities, like
Thames Gateway, which would explain higher levels of spending in these
cases, have not been included as an explanatory factor in this analysis.
However, if we exclude the two la