srb evaluation for six english regions

Government and Public SectorAugust 2008

Department for Business,Enterprise & RegulatoryReformAn evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budgetprogramme in six English Regions

Final Report

Government and Public SectorAugust 2008

This report has been prepared solely for the use of the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform

and should not be quoted in whole or in part without our prior consent. No responsibility to any third party is accepted

as the report has not been prepared for, and is not intended for any other purpose.

Draft deliverables and oral advice will not constitute PwC’s definitive opinions and conclusions. We will have no

liability to you for the content or use of any draft deliverables or for our oral advice, except where such oral advice is

confirmed in writing in a final version of any deliverables. We shall not be deemed to have knowledge of information

from other engagements for the purposes of the provision of the Services, except to the extent specified in the

Engagement letter. Save as expressly stated in the Engagement letter, we will rely on and will not verify the accuracy

or completeness of any information provided to us. The Services do not constitute an audit or review carried out in

accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and no assurance will be given by us.

In the event that, pursuant to a request which you have received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as the

same may be amended or re-enacted from time to time) or any subordinate legislation made thereunder (collectively,

the “Legislation”), you are required to disclose any information contained in this report, we ask that you notify us

promptly and consult with us prior to disclosing such information. You agree to pay due regard to any

representations which we may make in connection with such disclosure and to apply any relevant exemptions which

may exist under the Legislation to such information. If, following consultation with us, you disclose any such

information, please ensure that any disclaimer which we have included or may subsequently wish to include in the

information is reproduced in full in any copies disclosed.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP3

Contents

Section Page

1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4

2 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 11

3 Background to SRB............................................................................................................................. 14

4 Approach and methodology ................................................................................................................ 18

5 The impact of SRB in the East of England.......................................................................................... 39

6 The impact of SRB in London ............................................................................................................. 74

7 The impact of SRB in the North West ............................................................................................... 101

8 The impact of SRB in the South East................................................................................................ 126

9 The impact of SRB in the South West............................................................................................... 151

10 The impact of SRB in Yorkshire and Humber ................................................................................... 187

11 Summary and conclusions ................................................................................................................ 209

Appendix A – Complete list of Rounds 3-6 SRB schemes in participating RDAs.................................... 214

Appendix B – List of evaluations reviewed............................................................................................... 227

Appendix C – List of stakeholder consultations ....................................................................................... 236


1 Executive Summary

Introduction

The impact of spending by each of the nine Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and the RDAnetwork as a whole is currently being independently assessed, with a particular focus on activities inthe period from 2002/2003 to 2006/2007. The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) is a substantivepart of RDAs’ expenditure in this period, accounting for around £2 billion out of total RDA ‘relevantspending’ of £8.7 billion across the nine RDAs. Evaluating and understanding the impact of SRBactivity in the regions is, therefore, very important in terms of helping to understand the overall impactof RDA spending.

SRB was an ambitious, multi-faceted regeneration programme. It was launched in 1994 and ran forsix Rounds, with the last schemes finishing in 2008. It sought to simplify and streamline regenerationfunding and to promote a new way of tackling the problems faced by disadvantaged communities, bydelivering sustainable change through local regeneration partnerships.

The method of awarding funding and the types of initiatives supported changed over the lifetime ofSRB. As the programme progressed, the bidding approach of the early Rounds shifted towards amore commissioning-based process, with partnerships increasingly delivering specific programmes ofactivity rather than collections of individual projects. This later approach was more in keeping with themove towards strategic regeneration employed by the RDAs, who took over responsibility for SRB in1999 (2000 in London) from the regional Government Offices.

The SRB programme supported over 1,000 SRB schemes across England, each containing a numberof individual projects within. The national SRB programme received an estimated £5.8 billion offunding across its six Rounds, with total expenditure including leveraged funding estimated at £26billion

1.

In March 2008, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) were commissioned by the Department forBusiness, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to undertake a meta-evaluation to assess theimpact of SRB activity in six English regions: East of England, London, North West, South East, SouthWest and Yorkshire & Humber. Meta-evaluations of SRB spending had already been completed orwere planned for the three other regions: East Midlands, West Midlands

2and North East

3). The work

has been conducted by a joint team from PwC and York Consulting.

This report examines the performance of the SRB programme – the outputs, outcomes, impacts andlessons learnt – across the six participating regions.

Methodology

The primary objective of this project is to assess the net impact of SRB activities at the regional level,building on existing evidence from evaluations and monitoring of SRB schemes to deliver anevaluation of RDAs’ SRB spending, especially in the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07, which broadlymeets the needs of the Impact Evaluation Framework (IEF) that guides RDAs’ evaluation activities

1 The Single Regeneration Budget: A Partnership for Regeneration – The Final Evaluation Report – Department of LandEconomy, University of Cambridge, 20032 Evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget in the West Midlands – Ekos Consulting Ltd, 20083 An evaluation of the SRB programme in the North East – York Consulting, May 2007


and can feed into the impact evaluation of the RDA network as a whole. The focus of the work is onSRB schemes funded in Rounds 3 to 6, as the RDA Impact Steering Group agreed that it was theselater Rounds that RDAs were more effectively able to influence. Table 1.2 illustrates RDAs’ SRBexpenditure between 2002/03 and 2006/07; this expenditure is all deemed to be covered by this meta-evaluation.

The impact of SRB has been assessed though a meta-evaluation, which has been a largely desk-based review of existing evaluation evidence and other data sources for SRB schemes,complemented by primary discussions with regional stakeholders. The methodology has comprised:

a review of evaluation evidence and other data sources for 318 SRB Rounds 3 to 6 schemes in thesix participating regions;

telephone consultations with 33 stakeholders across the six regions;

analysis of programme expenditure, outputs, outcomes, impacts, strengths and weaknesses andthe lessons that can be learnt, based on the evaluation evidence received;

analysis of national expenditure and leverage information from the Department of Communitiesand Local Government (CLG); and

examination and analysis of the national evaluation of SRB, previously-completed regional SRBmeta-evaluations and other national evaluations of schemes with similar characteristics to SRB.

We have collected an evidence base covering 60% of SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 and 67% ofRounds 3 to 6 expenditure across the six participating regions. Our evidence base comprisesevaluation reports with final (or assumed final) output and expenditure data, or monitoring data that wewere able to check for consistency with other sources.

A key requirement of the IEF is that an evaluation should assess net impact. One of the majorweaknesses of the evaluations we have reviewed is that the vast majority do not consider the netimpacts of schemes. We have, therefore, used the additionality coefficients derived in the SRBNational Evaluation in order to estimate the net outputs of the SRB schemes within scope. Althoughthis approach is not ideal, it has been agreed with BERR and the wider RDA Impact Steering Groupas the best way of generating evidence in relation to RDAs’ net spending on SRB.

Overall projects and expenditure in the six regions

According to the list of successful SRB bids provided by CLG, there were 485 SRB schemes inRounds 3 to 6 across the six participating RDAs.

Table 1.1: Number of SRB schemes in scope per region, by Round, for participating RDAs

SRB RoundRDA

1 2 3 4 5 6 Round 1-6Total

Round 3-6Total

EEDA 13 9 9 7 11 16 65 43

LDA 49 41 48 22 38 46 244 154

NWDA 35 19 33 21 23 20 151 97

SEEDA 19 24 19 14 24 21 121 78

SWRDA 10 11 14 10 8 18 71 50

YF 22 15 16 14 14 19 100 63

Totals 148 119 139 88 118 140 752 485


Source: CLG

As Table 1.1 illustrates, almost a third of these schemes were in London alone, and more than halfwere in either London or the North West. The number of schemes varied significantly across the fourRounds, from 88 in Round 4 up to 140 in Round 6.

A total of £2.6 billion was spent on SRB in the six regions across Rounds 3 to 6. Table 1.2 shows thatthe six RDAs spent roughly £1.4 billion on SRB between 2002/03 and 2006/07, which is the focus ofthe wider project to assess the impact of RDA spending. This expenditure was highest at thebeginning of the period and tapered down over time, as the national programme drew towards itsconclusion.

Table 1.2: RDAs’ actual SRB expenditure in the RDA impact project relevant spend period (£million)

RDA 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total

EEDA 28.0 16.6 10.9 7.0 2.4 64.9

LDA 189.1 132.2 82.6 72.4 31.4 507.8

NWDA 46.2 97.6 66.8 67.9 43.2 321.8

SEEDA 37.4 41.1 23.1 20.3 6.9 128.8

SWRDA 15.6 12.3 11.5 9.6 6.2 55.2

YF 112.2 92.0 63.1 36.3 28.0 331.6

Totals 428.5 391.9 258.0 213.7 118.0 1,410.1

Source: PwC/RDAs

Table 1.2 shows the expenditure on SRB schemes incurred by the six RDAs between 2002/03 and2006/07. This is the volume of spend which will be treated as covered by this meta-evaluation for thepurposes of the wider RDA Impact project. This is not the same as the total expenditure of all Rounds3 to 6 schemes, because some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from2002/03 to 2006/07.

Overall outputs

SRB schemes recorded outputs across sixty-three different output categories. This reflects the broadeconomic and non-economic objectives of SRB schemes.

In this meta-evaluation, we have recorded, collated and analysed the evidence on outputs andassessed performance across each output category. We have collated outputs into three groups forthis meta-evaluation – core, other economic and other non-economic – in order to segment ourpresentation and analysis of the SRB programme. To illustrate the scale of SRB outputs across thesix regions, Table 1.3 presents the gross and net figures we have collated from the evaluationevidence we have received for the six core outputs across the RDAs that have participated in themeta-evaluation.


Table 1.3: SRB ‘core’ outputs across all six participating RDAs

Output category Total grossoutputs

Total net outputs Total gross RDAoutputs 2002/03 to

2006/07

1A (i) Number of jobs created 83,245 34,131

1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded 62,827 27,015306,708

1C Number of people trained obtaining

qualifications

279,400 156,465 n/a

2C (ii) New businesses supported

surviving 52 weeks

7,306 3,214 32,477

6B Land improved/reclaimed for

development (Ha)

6,342 3,108 3,543

8E Number of community enterprise

start-ups

1,144 892 n/a

Source: PwC/York Consulting, based on evaluation evidence provided by EEDA, LDA, NWDA, SEEDA, SWRDA and YF

As Table 1.3 demonstrates, the evaluation evidence we received estimates that Rounds 3 to 6 of theSRB programme created or safeguarded 145,000 gross and more than 60,000 net jobs across the sixregions. In net terms, around 156,000 people are estimated to have obtained qualifications throughtraining schemes that took place as a result of SRB; over 3,000 new businesses that were supportedby SRB survived for at least one year; over 3,000 hectares of land were improved or reclaimed fordevelopment and almost 900 community enterprises were established.

These are substantial numbers. To emphasise this point, we have compared the six RDAs’ coreoutputs between 2002/03 and 2006/07 with the gross outputs associated with the SRB schemes wehave reviewed, recognising that we are not comparing like with like because some of the SRB outputswould have occurred before 2002/03 and because of changing output definitions. Nonetheless, ouranalysis illustrates the importance of SRB across the six regions. For example, between 2002/03 and2006/07, the six RDAs reported just over 300,000 total gross jobs created or safeguarded; incomparison, the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 across those regions created or safeguarded almost150,000 jobs. The six RDAs reported 32,500 new supported businesses surviving 52 weeks; SRBRounds 3 to 6 supported 7,300. The RDAs reported that 3,500 hectares of land was improved orreclaimed for development; SRB Rounds 3 to 6 reclaimed 6,300 hectares (indicating that some of thisreclamation occurred before 2002/03). Although we cannot compare exactly, it is evident that SRBplayed a significant role in helping the RDAs to meet many of their core output targets.

SRB schemes had a range of economic and non-economic objectives and this report presents grossand net outputs for all sixty-three official output categories. The range of outputs generated illustratesthe breadth and scale of SRB. For example, in gross terms, across the six regions in SRB Rounds 3to 6:

1.2 million person weeks of construction jobs were created;

1.5 million pupils benefited from projects to improve attainment;

1.1 million square metres of new business and commercial floorspace was created;

6,500 buildings were brought back into use;

1,200 kilometres of roads were improved;

90,000 council houses were built or improved;

4,200 new health facilities were built, and were used by 300,000 people;


440,000 people attended crime prevention initiatives.

These are just some of the diverse outputs generated by SRB. Each of the six regional sections inthis report analyses the gross and net outputs generated by SRB schemes in that region across ourdesignated output groups of core, other economic and other non-economic.

One of the key requirements of the IEF is that an evaluation should assess the value for money of theoutputs generated by a programme or project by comparing the inputs with the outputs (or outcomes).In practice, however, a meaningful assessment of value for money has not been possible within thismeta-evaluation. SRB delivered a diverse range of outputs and outcomes, not all of which have beenor can be readily measured in economic terms. It is also not possible with the information available tomatch expenditure to particular outputs. For example, we do not know how much it cost to undertakeparticular activities, as the expenditure information we have cannot be disaggregated in that way. Wecannot, therefore, provide a meaningful assessment of the value for money of the activitiesundertaken. For the same reasons, we are also unable to assess the contribution of economicoutputs to gross value added (GVA).

Overall impacts and findings

The primary aim of SRB was to enhance the quality of life of local people in areas of need, byreducing the gap between deprived areas and other areas and between different groups in society.SRB sought to achieve this by focusing specific resources on the diverse challenges faced by poorerneighbourhoods.

The central tenet of SRB’s delivery approach was the development of local partnerships that wereable to develop schemes specifically tailored to local circumstances. This devolution of responsibilityfor administering funds to local partnerships allowed for a more flexible and innovative approach tolocal level regeneration.

Output performance

The individual regional sections demonstrate that SRB schemes have delivered a wide range ofeconomic and non-economic outputs, in diverse areas such as employment, education, training,housing, community facilities, crime prevention, road improvements, volunteering and childcare.Output performance across the sixty-three output categories defined by CLG was generally good inthe evidence that we reviewed, with targets largely being achieved. However, we have recordedsome wide variations in performance to target. Some of the evaluations themselves noted thedifficulties that partnerships encountered in setting meaningful targets across so many categories andin sometimes recording outputs accurately. We have not sought to verify target or output informationin the evidence that we have received.

Leverage

The programme also had some success in leveraging significant other public and private funds toregeneration projects – we found £1,027 million of evaluated SRB spend with leverage data in thismeta-evaluation, which showed leverage from the public and private sectors of £2,698 million,equating to leverage of £2.63 of public and private funding for every £1 spent on SRB.

Impact

Assessing the impact of SRB spend at either the local or, in particular, the regional level in a waywhich is consistent with the requirements of the Impact Evaluation Framework (IEF) has been achallenge, for several reasons. The schemes were largely designed to deliver impacts at a local,rather than a regional level, which means that we have tried to gain a sense of the regional picture byaggregating together the results of a series of local evaluations, without having the necessaryinformation that would enable us to assess regional-level factors such as intra-regional displacement;there was a lack of baseline data from which it would be possible to judge impact; we have beentotally dependent on evaluation evidence that is generally not compliant with the IEF, although werecognise that these principles were defined well after the schemes started – only a very small numberof evaluations have considered additionality, net outputs and overall outcomes, and the vast majority


have said very little about impact; and the strong emphasis of SRB on gross outputs means that ourmeta-evaluation, which reflects the evaluation evidence we have received, is able to say much moreon outputs than it can about outcomes or impacts.

Despite these challenges, some key themes around impact have emerged from the evidence we havereviewed. Some reports noted an increase in the self-confidence, self-esteem and skills base of theindividuals who participated in SRB projects; others reported an increased awareness of policingissues, a reduced fear of crime and increased feelings of community safety. Other impacts recordedacross the localities included an increase in those attending full-time education; a reduction ininstances of domestic abuse; increased youth participation in sporting activities; reducedunemployment and benefit claimant counts; increased access to, and participation in, education,employment and business opportunities from ethnic minority groups; environmental improvements;and increases in the number and usage of community facilities.

The scale and range of the gross outputs recorded demonstrate that SRB schemes had a notableimpact on communities. This suggests that the difference that communities will have felt from thecreation of many thousands of jobs, from the businesses that were supported, the people that weretrained, the houses that were built or improved, the community facilities that were built, the land thatwas reclaimed, the crime and safety initiatives that took place and the areas that were regenerated islikely to have been significant. Given the absence of wider evidence, it is difficult to say much moreabout the difference that the SRB programme has made because the evaluation evidence alone isgenerally too weak. Even those reports that sought to link SRB outputs to wider socio-economictrends noted the difficulties in linking SRB inputs to impacts.

Partnership working

Partnerships had successes and failures, as did schemes themselves. Where partnerships workedwell there was often an appropriate balance of public, private and community representation onpartnership boards. Getting partnerships to survive the duration of the scheme appears to have beena challenge: many evaluations refer to the waning enthusiasm of some board members once keyscheme decisions had been made.

Where partnerships were not so successful, there were often difficulties in getting the formal structuresfunctioning smoothly and in getting the balance of participation right. Engaging with the private sectorwas a consistent challenge for partnerships – the reported bureaucracy of SRB processes may nothave helped in this regard – and there was a tendency for partnerships to be dominated by public andvoluntary sector groups.

Legacy

Understanding the legacy of SRB within the context of this work has been difficult. Final evaluationreports were normally completed before schemes ended, and there was little evidence on the legacyof SRB in the evaluations we reviewed.

SRB was successful in the sense that it enabled more resources to be spent on deprived areas duringthe lifetime of the programme. However, the extent to which it was able to genuinely bendmainstream funding sources on a permanent basis is less clear, and it is difficult to know if and hownon-SRB areas have benefited from SRB schemes.

In terms of delivery mechanisms, we do not know how many partnerships survived post-SRB or forhow long. The evaluation evidence suggested that some partnerships were set to continue andevolve at their scheme’s end, by becoming stand-alone entities that could provide a strategic lead forthe location’s regeneration activities. However, other evaluations noted that some partnerships did notcontemplate an existence beyond SRB until the scheme was approaching its end, when both time andresources were short.

Despite some notable exceptions, there appears to be limited evidence of the mainstreaming of SRBprojects on the whole. This is not entirely surprising, given that mainstreaming was not a coreobjective of SRB.


Conclusions

With so many schemes – over 1,000 in total, and almost 500 across the six participating RDAs inRounds 3 to 6 – there are bound to have been successes and failures. The evidence we havereviewed suggests that many of the SRB schemes that were deemed by evaluators to have beensuccessful were considered to be meeting specific needs, were delivered in a coherent and cohesiveway, had good project appraisal processes, had strong and committed leadership and had an effectiveBoard containing active and representative participation from relevant sectors of the community.

Where schemes didn’t work so well, the evidence suggests that a variety of reasons contributed tothose difficulties. These include: recruitment difficulties and a lack of staff continuity; a lack of trainingto help Board members understand and discharge their duties effectively; a failure to attract or retainrepresentative involvement from all sections of the community, especially the private sector; a failureto engage with the section(s) of the community that the scheme was set up to benefit; a geographicalfocus that was too wide; and difficulties in balancing the aims and objectives of different interestgroups in the partnership.

Some of the lessons from SRB have no doubt already been learnt, given the time that has elapsedsince many SRB schemes ended. The amount that we can say about the success or otherwise ofschemes is necessarily limited by the amount we know about schemes’ outcomes and impacts.Nevertheless, some principles have emerged from the SRB evidence that are still relevant today: theneed to ensure that projects are focused, appropriately structured, achieve buy-in from relevantsectors of the local community where appropriate, are delivered in a joined-up way and are notencumbered by overburdening bureaucracy are lessons that will resonate meaningfully, regardless ofelapsed time or of subsequent developments in national or regional policy.


2 Introduction

Introduction

In March 2008, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) were commissioned by the Department forBusiness, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to undertake a meta-evaluation of the impact ofSingle Regeneration Budget (SRB) activity in six English regions: East of England, London, NorthWest, South East, South West and Yorkshire & Humber.

This is the final report for the meta-evaluation, which has been conducted by PwC and YorkConsulting. This report explains the purpose, scope and method of evaluation and presents thefindings of the evidence we have reviewed for each of the six participating RDAs.

Background to the meta-evaluation and to the wider RDA impact project

In December 2007, BERR (in its sponsorship role for the RDAs) and the RDAs appointed PwC toprovide an independent assessment of the impacts of spending for each of the nine RDAs and theRDA network as a whole. The work required is to:

carry out a comprehensive assessment of the nine RDAs’ existing and planned evaluationactivities, focusing on those commissioned since the last review and the development of theImpact Evaluation Framework;

analyse and assess the pattern of RDA spend covered by impact evaluations which have reportedor are currently expected to report;

carry out a quality assurance process on existing and planned evaluation activities to check thatthey are or will be fit for purpose;

identify the coverage of existing and planned evaluations and specify how it can be extended,either through accelerating ongoing or planned evaluations or by carrying out new studies;

support RDAs and their contractors in accelerating existing evaluations, or evaluations where thecommissioning process has started, and bringing existing studies up to a consistent and robuststandard; and

provide a framework for aggregating the results of RDA evaluations, building on the IEF.

The findings will be published in nine individual RDA Impact Evaluation Reports and an overallNational Impact Evaluation Report, which are due to be submitted on 30 November 2008.

The overall RDA impact evaluation is focusing on assessing the impact of RDAs’ programme/projectspend (i.e. excluding administration costs and expenditure that has been deemed to be too early toevaluate) in the period from 2002/2003 to 2006/2007, rather than legacy spend and spend on nationalprogrammes which RDAs deliver on behalf of central government. This expenditure is described as‘relevant expenditure’ in the overall RDA impact project and is a term that has been used at variouspoints throughout this report. The Steering Group for the overall RDA impact project agreed that all


RDAs should seek to generate credible, IEF-compliant evaluation evidence covering at least 60% ofthis spend.

SRB expenditure is a substantive part of RDAs’ relevant expenditure, accounting for around £2 billionout of a total RDA relevant spend figure of £8.7 billion. The National Audit Office is also known to beparticularly interested in understanding the impact of RDAs’ activities in relation to regeneration, andSRB projects are a key element of this.

An evaluation of SRB activity is, therefore, required in order to contribute to the current work beingundertaken to evaluate the impact of RDA spending. For many RDAs, achieving the target level ofevaluation coverage requires them to complete an IEF-compliant evaluation of SRB expenditure .

The Steering Group for the overall RDA impact project agreed that all RDAs should, as a minimum,undertake a meta-evaluation of their SRB activities. Meta-evaluations of SRB have already beencompleted for the West Midlands, East Midlands and North East. PwC were commissioned toundertake a meta-evaluation of the impact of SRB activity in the remaining six regions.

Evaluation aims

The primary objective of this project is to assess the net impact of SRB activities at the regional level,building on existing evidence from evaluations and monitoring of individual SRB schemes to deliver anevaluation of RDAs’ SRB spending, especially in the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07, which broadlymeets the needs of the IEF.

The focus of the work is on SRB Rounds 3 to 6, as the RDA impact project Steering Group agreedthat RDAs were more able to influence these later Rounds and expenditure on these Rounds wasconcentrated in the relevant period (2002/2003 – 2006/2007).

Limitations of the methodology

The work undertaken has been a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations of SRB schemes,which have been collated and analysed to estimate the impact of expenditure on SRB programmes inRounds 3 to 6. Wherever possible we have reviewed final evaluations; where this was not possible wehave reviewed other evidence available, such as interim evaluations, draft final evaluations,programme reviews or monitoring and output data.

The methodology we have adopted in this meta-evaluation is a pragmatic and practical response tothe challenges of evaluating but we recognise it has several important limitations, which we feel it isessential to state at the outset of this report:

This is not a primary evaluation – We have been entirely dependent on the quality and quantityof the evaluations we have received, rather than being able to review RDAs’ SRB programmes atfirst hand.

There was no clear evaluation framework for SRB – This has meant that the evaluations wehave received vary in their scope and approach.

The evaluation evidence base is incomplete – The SRB evaluation evidence base we havereceived does not cover all SRB schemes in scope, despite the strenuous efforts of RDAs to trackdown as much evidence for us as they could, and not all the evaluation evidence we have receivedis usable.

Corporate memory of the SRB programme is limited – This has made it harder to gain a fullunderstanding of the purpose, activities and outcomes of those programmes.

Most evaluations have not involved direct contact with beneficiaries – A wholly IEF-compliant


evaluation of SRB would have involved direct contact with beneficiaries to get evidence of theimpact that SRB schemes have had, to understand more about what would have happened in theabsence of these interventions and to determine the dimensions of additionality.

The estimates of additionality reflect local rather than regional-level impacts – Theadditionality coefficients we have taken from the SRB national evaluation are estimates of local,rather than regional impacts (based on SRB schemes from Rounds 1 and 2).

Report structure

This report has been structured in a way that enables it to be navigated without having to read thewhole document. The report is presented in a consistent way for the six regions, with eleven mainsections and three appendices, and is structured as followed:

Section 1 is an overarching executive summary;

Section 2 is an introduction to the whole project;

Section 3 contains a background to the national SRB programme;

Section 4 contains an explanation of the approach and methodology that has been adopted for themeta-evaluation, including an analysis of the total evaluation evidence we have received;

Sections 5 to 10 are six regional chapters, which outline the outputs, outcomes and impact of theexpenditure that we have received evaluation evidence for;

Section 11 is a concluding chapter that outlines the key messages we have gathered from thereviewed evidence across the six regions.

A set of appendices outline the evidence we have reviewed and the people we have spoken tothrough our regional stakeholder consultations.

Sections 1 to 4 and Section 11 are relevant to all regions; sections 5 to 10 are region specific.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge with thanks the support of the six participating RDAs, who have worked so hard toretrieve as much SRB evaluation evidence as possible – these efforts are much appreciated. We arealso grateful to the representatives of the SRB Steering Group, who have helped to guide andinfluence the project.


3 Background to SRB

SRB history and context

Background

Prior to the establishment of SRB, central government’s approach to regeneration had beencharacterised by a large number of separate funding streams and a reactive, rather piecemealapproach to tackling deprivation. When the SRB programme commenced in 1994, it sought to simplifyand streamline the Government’s existing regeneration schemes, bringing some eighteen separateprogrammes into a single pot.

SRB was designed not only to streamline regeneration funding, but also to promote a new way oftackling the problems faced by disadvantaged communities. Delivery through local regenerationpartnerships was a key feature of the SRB programme. Partnerships were tasked with identifying localneed and developing suitable responses. Partnership boards were established to oversee delivery,made up of representatives from the public, private and voluntary and community sectors. In manycases, a local authority was the accountable body. At the regional level, the SRB programme was runby Government Offices in the English regions until 1999, when the responsibility passed to the RDAs(2000 in London).

The method of awarding funding and the types of initiatives supported changed over the lifetime ofSRB. As the programme progressed, the bidding approach of the early Rounds shifted towards amore commissioning-based process, with partnerships increasingly delivering specific programmes ofactivity rather than collections of individual projects. This later approach was more in keeping with themove towards strategic regeneration employed by the RDAs.

Rationale

The overall rationale for SRB centred on the desire to tackle social exclusion and promote equality ofopportunity. The focus of support was on the most deprived communities in England, with the aimbeing to reduce the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest, and between different groupsin society.

In addition, specific rationales existed for each individual SRB scheme, depending on localcircumstances. The nature of a locality’s problems, their size and scale, also meant that there wassignificant variation in the spatial level of intervention. The focus of the schemes ranged from regionalright down to ward and estate level.

Aims and objectives

The overall aim of the SRB programme was “to enhance the quality of life of local people in areas ofneed, by reducing the gap between deprived and other areas, and between different groups”

4.

Beneath this, a core set of common objectives underpinned the programme throughout the sixRounds. These focused on:

improving the employment prospects of local people;

4 Department for Communities and Local Government’s SRB website – Background and Overview: seehttp://www.communities.gov.uk/citiesandregions/regeneration/singleregenerationbudget/221229/


encouraging economic growth;

reducing crime;

improving housing; and

protecting and enhancing the environment.

While there was substantial common ground between the SRB objectives across the Rounds, somechanges did take place over the duration of the programme, especially in Rounds 5 and 6. Forexample, the early objective of supporting ethnic minorities was replaced by a wider commitment toaddress social exclusion and, in Round 5, the Rural Challenge Fund was assimilated into the SRBprogramme.

Irrespective of changes to the objectives between Rounds, the scope of the SRB programme wasalways very broad. This is reflected in the very wide range of initiatives that were supported, betweenand within schemes. These have included large-scale strategic transport infrastructure projects,substantial physical improvements to housing estates, CCTV schemes, school-based projects andbusiness support initiatives. Importantly for the RDAs, economic development was always just one ofa number of SRB objectives.

Scale

The scale of SRB investment and activity amounts to over 1,000 separate schemes over six Rounds.Table 3.1 highlights the total number of SRB schemes by Round across the nine English regions.London was the largest recipient of schemes across the lifetime of SRB, and in each Round. TheEast of England had the fewest schemes.

Table 3.1: Total number of SRB schemes per region, by Round

SRB RoundRegion

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

East 13 9 9 7 11 16 65

East Midlands 11 15 14 10 11 19 80

London 49 41 48 22 38 46 244

North East 29 17 20 12 16 19 113

North West 35 19 33 21 23 20 151

South East 19 24 19 14 24 21 121

South West 10 11 14 10 8 18 71

West Midlands 13 21 9 11 18 11 83

Yorkshire & Humber 22 15 16 14 14 19 100

Totals 201 172 182 121 163 189 1,028

Source: CLG

Funding

Table 3.2 shows the total budgeted SRB expenditure for each Round, across the regions. Totalbudgeted expenditure for SRB amounted to £5.8 billion over the six Rounds. Again, London and theEast of England were the largest and smallest beneficiaries of SRB funding respectively.


Table 3.2: Total budgeted SRB expenditure per region, by Round (£m)

SRB RoundRegion

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

East 25.1 35.3 18.6 8.7 20.6 32.7 141

East Midlands 46.2 56.9 29.7 22.3 64 71 290.1

London 316.2 252.3 280 73.1 319.8 300 1541.4

North East 80.6 160.6 141.5 20.5 119.6 127.7 650.5

North West 216.9 220.6 141.9 53.1 217.8 231.6 1081.9

South East 31.8 78.6 108 23 70.4 70 381.8

South West 33.9 37.9 23.1 10.4 30.9 31.7 167.9

West Midlands 156.7 146.9 55.3 50 87.2 134.3 630.4

Yorkshire & Humber 202.2 151.1 130.6 57.8 108.8 230 880.5

Totals 1109.6 1140.2 928.7 318.9 1039.1 1229 5765.5

Source: CLG

Scale of support and need

The variation in expenditure between regions is partly explained by their differing levels of deprivation,a factor that was central to the determination of SRB financial support. Table 3.3 shows the number ofSuper Output Areas

5in each region that fell in the bottom quartile of the government’s Index of

Multiple Deprivation (IMD) in 2004. Comparing these figures as percentages with the percentage ofSRB funding received shows that, in five regions, the variance between these two figures was lessthan two percentage points.

Notwithstanding the variances, the data provides an indicative picture of how SRB funding wasallocated between regions and suggests a reasonably good fit between need and financial support.

Table 3.3: SRB funding and deprivation

Region Number of SOAs inbottom IMD quartile

nationally

% of total SOAs inlowest IMD quartile

nationally

% of SRBfundingreceived

Variance(percentage

points)

East 316 3.9% 2.4% -1.5

East Midlands 618 7.6% 5.0% -2.6

London 1662 20.5% 26.7% 6.2

North East 753 9.3% 11.3% 2.0

North West 1726 21.3% 18.8% -2.5

South East 402 5.0% 6.6% 1.6

South West 397 4.9% 2.9% -2.0

West Midlands 1100 13.5% 10.9% -2.6

Yorkshire & Humber 1146 14.1% 15.3% 1.2

Totals 8120 100.0% 100.0% ---

Source: PwC/York Consulting, based on IMD/CLG data

5 Super Output Areas are a “geographic hierarchy” designed to improve the reporting of small area statistics through threelayers (minimum 1,000; minimum 5,000; minimum 25,000) of consistent sizes and boundaries. They are designed to be morerobust and comparable than electoral ward categorisations. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/soa.asp for more detail.


Role of RDAs in SRB

With their establishment in 1999 (2000 in London), RDAs took over responsibility for the regionaladministration of the SRB programme from the Government Offices.

The RDAs’ role went beyond that of regional administrator, and there was an expectation that SRBwould be used to support the delivery of the regions’ Regional Economic Strategies. While RDAs wereexpected to have the capacity to influence Rounds 4 and 5 (the latter’s bidding Round occurred just asthe RDAs were being established), in practice this was not always the case, as SRB partnershipswere often committed to meeting their established delivery plans.

It was in Round 6 where the linkages to RDAs’ priorities and objectives became notably clearer. ForRound 6, SRB funding was explicitly expected to support regionally-determined priorities. Wherepossible, RDAs were encouraged to ensure that activity supported under previous Rounds alsoaddressed the region’s needs. The assimilation of SRB into the new RDA mechanisms wascompleted in 2002, when the funding stream was incorporated into the Single Pot Programme.


4 Approach and methodology

Introduction

This section explains the approach and methodology we have adopted to evaluate the impact of SRBacross the six participating RDAs. It also provides more information about the breadth and depth ofevaluation evidence we have received.

Scope of the meta-evaluation

As explained in Section 1, the RDA impact project Steering Group agreed that the focus of the meta-evaluation should be on SRB schemes funded under Rounds 3 to 6.

Table 4.1 outlines the number of SRB schemes in scope by region and by SRB Round, for eachparticipating RDA. According to the list of successful SRB bids provided by CLG, there were 485 SRBschemes in Rounds 3 to 6 across the six participating RDAs. As the table illustrates, the number ofschemes across these four Rounds varied significantly between the regions, from 43 in the East ofEngland to 154 in London. The total number of schemes per Round also varied notably, from a high of140 in Round 6 to a low of 88 in Round 4.

Table 4.1: Number of SRB schemes in scope per region, by Round, for participating RDAs

SRB Round

RDA1 2 3 4 5 6 Round 1-6

TotalRound 3-6

Total

EEDA 13 9 9 7 11 16 65 43

LDA 49 41 48 22 38 46 244 154

NWDA 35 19 33 21 23 20 151 97

SEEDA 19 24 19 14 24 21 121 78

SWRDA 10 11 14 10 8 18 71 50

YF 22 15 16 14 14 19 100 63

Totals 148 119 139 88 118 140 752 485

Source: CLG


SRB project evaluation evidence

The evidence collation process

The meta-evaluation is a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations and other data sources forSRB schemes. Our starting point for collecting evidence was the list of successful SRB bids providedby CLG for Rounds 3 to 6 for the six participating RDAs

6. We liaised with all of the nominated lead

contacts within the RDAs over a two-month period to try and track down as much evaluation evidencefor these schemes as possible.

We looked at a range of evidence to help us understand SRB schemes and their impacts. Completedevaluations were not available for every SRB scheme, despite every SRB scheme having anobligation to undertake an end of scheme evaluation. We reviewed final evaluations whereverpossible; where this was not possible, we reviewed other available evidence such as interimevaluations, draft evaluations, annual reviews, forward strategies or monitoring and output data.

Not all of the evidence we reviewed was usable for our purposes. We were only able to use anevaluation report that contained final (or assumed final) output and expenditure data, or monitoringdata that we were able to check for consistency with other sources.

Several RDAs sent us monitoring data to augment our evidence base for schemes where evaluationswere not available. We reviewed this monitoring data on an RDA-by-RDA basis by comparing themonitoring data to the final evaluation reports we had in our possession. We assumed that the datacontained in the independent evaluations was accurate, so monitoring data needed to be consistentwith the evaluation evidence across a range of evaluations in order to be considered reliable enoughfor our purposes.

In some instances we were able to confirm the consistency of monitoring data with the evaluations wehad received. When this was the case, we used the monitoring data to augment our evidence base forschemes where we did not have evaluations. However, if we were unable to confirm the consistencyof the monitoring data, or if the monitoring data was incomplete, we did not use monitoring data at all,or used it only where it matched what was available in evaluations but covered more outputcategories.

We also had to decide how to treat the interim and draft evaluation reports that we received. Wherethose reports provide output information to a particular point in the scheme, rather than the end of thescheme, we have treated those outputs as the best estimate of final outputs, rather than projectingthem forward, recognising that extrapolation of past performance would not be appropriate. We alsodisregarded projected output figures on the grounds that we had only a limited basis for assessingtheir robustness. The implication of this is that our analysis may understate the actual outputsachieved by schemes that we have received interim or draft reports for.

Table 4.2 outlines the amount of usable evidence we received for each SRB Round and indicates thecoverage of schemes and expenditure we have achieved. For the purposes of our meta-evaluation,usable means some form of evaluation report with final (or assumed final) output and expendituredata, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources.

6 See the CLG website for more information -http://www.communities.gov.uk/citiesandregions/regeneration/singleregenerationbudget/


Table 4.2: Total SRB evaluation evidence received by Round

SRBRound

Total numberof SRB

schemes

Number ofschemes with

usable evidencereceived

Percentage ofschemes forthat Round

Percentage ofbudgeted

expenditure

Amount ofbudgeted

expenditure(£m)

Round 3 139 71 51% 63% 446.7

Round 4 88 49 56% 72% 162.0

Round 5 118 76 64% 72% 570.2

Round 6 140 93 66% 64% 618.9

Total 485 289 60% 67% 1,797.8

Source: PwC/York Consulting. Expenditure in this table refers to budgeted SRB expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from

CLG data.

As can be seen from Table 4.2, we have received usable evidence for two hundred and eighty-nineschemes, covering 60% of all Rounds 3 to 6 schemes and covering 67% of Rounds 3 to 6 budgetedexpenditure. The total expenditure listed in this table (£1.8 billion) is different to the £1.4 billion of SRBexpenditure incurred by the six RDAs between 2002/03 and 2006/07, as listed in Table 1.2, becausesome of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07. Theexpenditure listed in Table 1.2 is the amount of expenditure for each RDA that is covered by this meta-evaluation.

The amount of expenditure covered in usable evaluations is relatively consistent across the Roundsbut the percentage of schemes covered by usable evaluations increases steadily over the fourRounds, from 51% in Round 3 through to 66% in Round 6.

These coverage figures will clearly vary between regions. Regional versions of Table 4.2 can be foundin Sections 5 to 10, explaining the amount of evidence that we have been able to gather for eachindividual region.

We have used budgeted or forecast expenditure as our measurement for programme coverage forreasons of practicality – the budgeted expenditure figures were independently produced by CLG, theyare consistently available across all SRB schemes and they are available for all six RDAs. Not all ofthe evaluation evidence we received contained actual expenditure figures, and where evaluations didcontain actual expenditure figures they were in practice very similar to the budgeted expenditurefigures we have used.

Table 4.3 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by SRB Round and by size of scheme.These figures include the evidence that we were not able to use – summing the columns containingthe total number of schemes with evaluations received shows that we received evaluation evidence for318 schemes. Table 4.4 illustrates that we found 289 of these to be usable.


Table 4.3: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round and by size of scheme

SRBRound

Number ofschemes

under £1m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Number ofschemes

£1m - £3m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Number ofschemes

above £3m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Round 3 29 9 40 18 70 48

Round 4 24 13 35 22 29 22

Round 5 22 9 43 34 53 41

Round 6 44 22 26 23 70 57

Total 119 53 144 97 222 168

Source: PwC/York Consulting. Expenditure categories relate to SRB money only.

SRB schemes ranged in size from several thousand pounds up to tens of millions of pounds. As Table4.3 shows, we received most evaluations for the largest schemes, with expenditure above £3 million.Similarly, we received fewest evaluations for those schemes where expenditure was under £1 million,which may reflect a lower evaluation budget for those schemes or possibly an inclination to notevaluate smaller schemes.

These figures will obviously vary between regions. Regional versions of Table 4.3 can be found inSections 5 to 10, to provide more detail about the evaluation evidence that we have received for eachindividual region.

Data issues

We faced a range of difficulties in reconciling some of the expenditure data given in the evaluationreports with the budgeted or forecast expenditure figures contained in the list of successful SRB bidsprovided by CLG. It is worth highlighting some of these issues here, to illustrate the difficulties thathave been encountered in the research process.

SRB schemes were delivered by numerous partnerships that were responsible for monitoring outputsand spend and ensuring independent evaluation, and RDAs were not always involved at the outset ofprogrammes. Each RDA had its own systems for monitoring and recording SRB performance in theregion. Some RDAs have had real difficulty in locating evaluations, resulting in slow and time-consuming searches of archives and storage facilities. Other RDAs have had difficulty confirming thatprogrammes that were on the CLG list of approved bids actually took place. In other instances noevaluation took place at all, despite evaluation being a requirement of the SRB programme.

Many RDAs struggled to locate reports within the originally-allocated time, which resulted in anextension of the data collection period from one month to two. In some instances, the evidencereceived was patchy and did not include the information which was sought, which resulted in ushaving to spend more time following up with the RDAs to try to locate the relevant information. Otherreports which included the relevant information in some cases lacked clarity – for example, outputswere sometimes listed without a clear description of the time period to which they referred. In manyinstances, forecast and actual expenditure figures were not available or were not clearly stated.

In some instances we received evaluations for schemes that did not match with the CLG list. Wherethis was the case, we sought to confirm with the RDA if the evaluation related to a Round 1 or 2scheme or if it was an amalgamation of different schemes. We were able to clear up mostdiscrepancies in this way, but there were some evaluations that did not appear to correlate with theofficial list and did not immediately appear to be amalgamated schemes. In these instances weattempted to clarify with CLG and the RDA concerned if these were in fact additional schemes thathad possibly been agreed after the ‘official’ list was compiled. Neither CLG nor the RDAs were able to


confirm if that was the case. As we were not able to confirm the official existence of these ‘additional’schemes, we have assumed that the original CLG list is correct and that these schemes are notadditional.

One of the RDAs disputed the number of schemes attributed to them in the official CLG list, as theybelieve they have delivered a smaller number of schemes. Again, we sought clarification from CLG butwe were not able to confirm the position. In the absence of firm evidence to the contrary, we haveassumed that the CLG list is correct.

We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individualevaluations can tell us about RDAs’ expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 4.4 below outlineswhat we have found. The figures include those schemes for which we received evidence that we werenot able to use – we received evaluation evidence for 318 schemes, of which 289 were usable.

Table 4.4: Prevalence of output/expenditure data in evaluation evidence received

SRBRound

Number ofschemes withevaluations

received


usableevaluations

Number ofevaluations withactual & forecast

expenditure

Number ofevaluationscontaining

grossoutputs

Number ofevaluationscontainingnet outputs

Round 3 75 71 56 63 0

Round 4 57 49 44 45 2

Round 5 84 74 60 69 4

Round 6 102 95 70 87 5

Total 318 289 230 264 11

Source: PwC/York Consulting

Around three-quarters of the evaluations we received contained forecast and actual expenditure. Morethan 80% contained some form of gross output information, which has formed the backbone of themeta-evaluation. Unfortunately, but not altogether surprisingly, hardly any of the evaluations wereviewed contained assessed net outputs – just 3%.

If our meta-evaluation had been informed by a stock of SRB evaluations containing assessments ofboth gross and net outputs derived using scheme-specific additionality coefficients generated throughbeneficiary surveys, we could potentially have used these evaluations as the basis for estimating thenet outputs of the SRB schemes in scope. As anticipated this was not the case, since:

many SRB scheme evaluations pre-dated the IEF by several years; and

the evaluation guidance/requirement given to SRB partnerships was not always clear.

Of the few evaluations we received that contained gross to net calculations, the vast majority had usedthe additionality coefficients generated through the SRB national evaluation to estimate the netoutputs of the schemes. None of the evaluations with net outputs had undertaken the detailed workwith beneficiaries, or covered the breadth of outputs, to make them suitable for being used in ourwork. There are, however, some SRB scheme evaluations currently being completed in a couple ofthe RDAs involved in this meta-evaluation that are expected to be IEF compliant: unfortunately, theyhave not been completed in time to be included in our work, but they will help to contribute to the widerassessment of RDA impact that is currently taking place.

We recognised at the outset of our work that we were unlikely to find many evaluations with newevidence on the pattern of additionality and that this would have implications for our work. In order forthis meta-evaluation to be as compliant as it can with the IEF, the only option is to use a similarmethodology to assess net impact as has been used in the completed SRB meta-evaluations in theEast Midlands, West Midlands and the North East. These three evaluations have applied the


additionality coefficients derived in the SRB national evaluation to their regions’ gross outputs in orderto estimate the net outputs.

Although not ideal, this approach has been agreed with the wider RDA impact Steering Group as thebest alternative to receiving locally-driven additionality information. More detail on this can be foundlater in this section.

Regional versions of Table 4.4 can be found in Sections 5 to 10.

Profile of expenditure and gross outputs

Rounds 3 to 6 budgeted expenditure

Table 4.5 provides a breakdown of budgeted SRB expenditure that the RDAs participating in thismeta-evaluation were expected to spend over Rounds 3 to 6. The analysis is based on CLG’s list ofsuccessful SRB bids.

Table 4.5: Rounds 3 to 6 budgeted expenditure for the six participating RDAs (£ million)

SRB RoundRDA

Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Total

EEDA 18.6 8.7 20.6 32.7 80.6

LDA 287.3 73.1 319.8 300.0 972.9

NWDA 141.9 53.1 217.8 231.6 644.4

SEEDA 108.0 23.0 70.4 70.0 271.4

SWRDA 23.1 10.4 30.9 31.7 96.1

YF 130.6 57.8 108.8 230.2 527.2

Totals 709.5 226.1 768.3 896.2 2,600.1

Source: CLG

As can be seen from Table 4.5, budgeted expenditure was not evenly split across Rounds 3 to 6.Budgeted SRB expenditure increased consistently between Rounds 3, 5 and 6 but fell sharply inRound 4. Round 4 received significantly less funding (9% of the total funding for Rounds 3 to 6), whilstRounds 3, 5 and 6 received 27%, 30% and 35% respectively. Round 4 expenditure was dramaticallyreduced in all RDAs, with the South East region experiencing the most significant fall in SRB funding –an 80% reduction from Rounds 3 to 4.

We have researched the data and guidance of the time, to try and understand the reasons for thereduced expenditure and programme numbers in Round 4. We have also reviewed the SRBevaluations completed for the other three regions, to see if a review of other regional evaluations cansolve the puzzle. We have not uncovered any specific reason behind this variation, which was alsohighlighted in the North East and West Midlands’ meta-evaluations but was similarly unexplained.There is also no evidence in the original bidding guidance for Round 4 which can provide any insightinto the reason for such a fall in SRB funding.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the most likely explanation relates to the change in Government in1997. CLG officials we spoke to were unable to provide an official explanation; however, they did tellus that the original bidding guidance for Round 4 was issued just before the 1997 General Electionand that after being elected, the new Labour Government issued amended bidding guidance, warningpotential bidders that the amount of funding to be distributed would be severely constrained as a resultof pressure from commitments from earlier Challenge Fund rounds.


RDA impact project ‘relevant’ expenditure

As noted above, the wider RDA impact project is focusing on assessing the impact of RDAs’ spendingbetween 2002/03 and 2006/07. It is, therefore, important to understand the scale of actual SRBexpenditure that the RDAs incurred over this period. This is shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: RDAs’ actual SRB expenditure in the RDA impact project relevant spend period (£million)

RDA 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total

EEDA 28.0 16.6 10.9 7.0 2.4 64.9

LDA 189.1 132.2 82.6 72.4 31.4 507.8

NWDA 46.2 97.6 66.8 67.9 43.2 321.8

SEEDA 37.4 41.1 23.1 20.3 6.9 128.8

SWRDA 15.6 12.3 11.5 9.6 6.2 55.2

YF 112.2 92.0 63.1 36.3 28.0 331.6

Totals 428.5 391.9 258.0 213.7 118.0 1,410.1

Source: PwC/RDAs

It is important to remember that the expenditure shown in Table 4.6 does not include all the spend onthe SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6, since some of the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6was incurred outside the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07. This means that some caution must beexercised when interpreting the evaluation evidence in the context of the wider evaluation of RDAspending. In particular, when comparing inputs with outputs, it is important to recall that:

this meta-evaluation has considered all the outputs from usable evaluation evidence (rather thanonly certain years); and

we have identified and received usable evaluation reports for only a proportion of all the Rounds 3to 6 schemes.

The basis for assessing interventions

Regional SRB logic chains

The evidence we have reviewed in the meta-evaluation has been disparate. It comes from a widevariety of sources and has been conducted in many different styles and formats, over a range ofyears. It is, therefore, important that the information is analysed as consistently as possible,recognising that the context in which each SRB scheme was undertaken and the outcomes andimpacts that it achieved will be location and programme specific.

In order to provide a framework for assessing the effectiveness of SRB interventions we havedeveloped a generic, national SRB logic chain to provide a link between the rationale, activity, outputsand outcomes for each SRB intervention (and the projects within it). Such a logic chain is a standardtool in evaluation, and is expected within the IEF. The breadth and diversity of SRB schemes, and thefact that this is a meta-evaluation drawing on existing evaluations (rather than undertaking primaryevaluation work) means that it is impractical to develop and apply specific logic chains for each SRBscheme in every region.

A generic national SRB logic chain

We have reviewed various SRB bidding and guidance documents, as well as some work on therationale for SRB produced by the Department of Land Economy at Cambridge University (thenational SRB evaluators), to gain a better understanding of the rationale, objectives and intentions ofthe SRB programme at a national level. We have used this to construct a generic, national logic chain


which describes the linkages between the rationale, objectives, activities, outputs and (intended)outcomes of the overall SRB programme and the various elements within. The components of thelogic chain are described over the next few pages, and summarised diagrammatically in Figure 4.1.

Rationale

The national evaluators of the SRB programme identified three main components of the rationale:

market failure in one or all of the labour, land/property, capital and housing markets;

the failure of mainstream programmes to address the breadth, depth and interactive nature of theproblems in those markets; and

institutional incapability to tackle the problems in a way that would break the vicious circle wherebythe problems of one generation are passed on to the next

7.

As outlined in the background to SRB section of this report, the rationale for SRB centred on a desireto tackle social exclusion and promote equality of opportunity. The focus of support was on the mostdeprived communities in England, with the aim being to reduce the gap between the most deprivedareas and the rest, and between different groups in society.

SRB was targeted at the most deprived areas in England and included an emphasis on tacklingworklessness, reducing crime, improving health and raising educational achievements, with thedevelopment of multi-agency regeneration partnerships being a key feature. Round 1 SRB biddingguidance produced by the Government Offices

8stated that SRB “will help to improve local areas and

enhance the quality of life of local people by tackling need, stimulating wealth creation and improvingcompetitiveness”, as part of an aim to “make Government more responsive to local needs andpriorities….and encourage sustainable local regeneration”.

Later SRB bidding guidance from the ODPM (Round 5) indicates the importance of equityconsiderations: “SRB…is an important instrument in the Government's drive to tackle social exclusionand promote equality. Its priority is to enhance the quality of life of local people in areas of need, byreducing the gap between deprived and other areas, and between different groups.”

9

Design

The SRB programme sought to “simplify and streamline the assistance available for regeneration”10

and brought together funding from eighteen previously separate programmes such as the UrbanProgramme, the Local Initiative Fund and Regional Enterprise Grants. The activities it supported wereintended to “make a real and lasting impact and to encourage partners to come together in a jointapproach to meeting local needs and priorities”.11

A central tenet of SRB was the concept of local regeneration partnerships, which were tasked withidentifying local need and developing and delivering regeneration programmes accordingly. “A keyfeature of SRB has been the development of multi-agency regeneration partnerships. These haveincluded public, private and voluntary sector organisations.”

12

Objectives

The Government Offices’ Round 1 Bidding Guidance outlined seven broad objectives associated withthe national SRB programme:

the enhancement of employment prospects of local people through training;

7 Evaluation of Regeneration Activities Funded under the Single Regeneration Budget Bidding Round: The EvaluationFramework – Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, March 19978 Bidding Guidance: A guide to funding from the Single Regeneration Budget, Government Offices for the Regions9 SRB Round 5 bidding guidance: A guide for partnerships, ODPM10 CLG SRB website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/citiesandregions/regeneration/singleregenerationbudget/11 See 712 See 7


improvements to the underlying competitiveness of local businesses (both new and existing);

improving the physical infrastructure and the state of the local environment;

improving the housing conditions of disadvantaged groups in the local area;

improving access for ethnic minorities;

tackling crime and community safety; and

enhancing the quality of life for local people, including their health, cultural and sportsopportunities.

Round 4 bidding guidance from ODPM13

indicated that “the activities [SRB] supports are intended tomake a real and sustainable impact. [SRB] encourages local people, businesses and otherorganisations to come together as partners in a joint approach to meet the needs and priorities whichthey identify.” By Round 5, the objectives in the bidding guidance had evolved and narrowed to:

enhance the employment prospects, education and skills of local people;

address social exclusion and enhance opportunities for the disadvantaged;

promote sustainable regeneration, improving and protecting the environment and infrastructure,including housing;

support and promote growth in local economies and businesses; and

tackle crime and drug abuse and improve community safety.

Inputs

An estimated £5.8 billion was spent on the national SRB programme across its six Rounds, with £2.6billion being spent across the six RDAs participating in this meta-evaluation in Rounds 3 to 6 alone. Inaddition, the national evaluation estimated that SRB was used to leverage additional resources.Across all six Rounds it is estimated that leveraged funding reached £26 billion, of which £9 billioncame from the private sector

14.

Activities

The Government Offices’ Round 1 Bidding Guidance15

explained that SRB funding was intended to beused as either “part of an overall strategy for a relatively wide area or to contribute to a self-containedstrategy for a local area”, and should aim to achieve at least one of the seven broad objectives forSRB (employment, competitiveness, infrastructure, housing, access, crime and quality of life).

Activities focused on a wider area could:

reinforce and enhance mainstream programmes and other existing public/private sector initiatives,such as supporting business development and start-ups in sectors likely to contribute mosteffectively to growth; and

enable a particularly disadvantaged group (e.g. residents, young people, ethnic minorities) tobenefit from identified opportunities.

Activities focused on a local area could:

focus on geographical areas smaller than a local authority district (under 25,000 population);

13 Challenge Fund Round Four Bidding Guidance, ODPM14 As 115 As 8


be small enough for the sums of money involved to show a real impact and deliver worthwhileresults that could be measured; and

focus on different types of area, such as a city centre, housing estate(s) or an area with otherinvestment opportunities.

The schemes themselves were varied, ranging from activities which could be considered to be of amore directly economic nature, such as training, educational attainment, construction, road building,land reclamation and enterprise support, through to those with a more overtly social dimension, suchas personal and social development projects, community safety initiatives, support for community andvoluntary organisations and increasing community access to health, sporting and cultural facilities.Some schemes were very broad and wide-ranging, whereas others had a much narrower focus.Activities were linked to output categories, as outlined below.

Outputs

In Round 1, Government Ministers outlined a list of objectives for the SRB programme and indicatedthat SRB funding should be used to meet one of these objectives. To this end a range of key outputmeasures were developed, to act as indicators of progress and performance against the programme’sobjectives in the various intervention categories, as illustrated indicatively below:

employment prospects, education and skills and equality of opportunity (linked to outputs 1A, 1B,1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K and 1L);

competitiveness of the local economy, including business support (linked to outputs 2A, 2B, 2Cand 2D);

housing (linked to outputs 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E);

ethnic minorities (linked to outputs 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E);

crime and improve community safety (linked to outputs 5A, 5B, 5C and 5D);

environment, infrastructure and good design (linked to outputs 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E and 6F);

quality of life of local people, including health, cultural and sports opportunities (linked to outputs7A and 7B);

voluntary sector and the community (linked to outputs 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E and 8F); and

leverage of private sector and European Union resources (linked to output 9A).

Further output categories were added as the programme developed. For example, output 10A –number of new childcare places provided – was added in Round 2.

The outputs used to measure SRB performance evolved over the lifetime of the programme. By 2005,when the RDAs moved towards a regime that measured ‘core’ outputs, there were only six SRBoutputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets.

Our review of the evaluation evidence has allowed us to collate gross output data across the 63 officialSRB output categories, which are listed below in Tables 4.7 to 4.9. A template was produced (andagreed with the RDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in theevaluation evidence we received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the officialSRB output categories that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed. This recording templatehas formed the backbone of our analysis and allowed us to consider SRB outputs across the board.

We have also been mindful of the need to capture a range of qualitative information. To this end, therecording template contained a range of qualitative fields, covering:

key outcomes and impacts – qualitative and quantitative, intended and unintended, positive andnegative;


partnership working – e.g. which groups were involved, structures, processes and the successesand failures of working with different groups;

community engagement – e.g. which groups were involved, structures, processes and the levels ofengagement between different groups;

leadership – including the operation of programme management structures and the roles of theorganisations involved;

governance – including the operation of project appraisal, oversight and scrutiny structures and theroles/involvement of different organisations;

strategic added value – strategic leadership and catalyst, strategic influence, leverage, synergyand engagement; and

programme strengths and weaknesses.

This recognition of schemes’ economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs isimportant in terms of assessing schemes’ overall performance. Tables 4.7 to 4.9 list all the outputsthat we have collected data for through our meta-evaluation recording template and outline thecategories that we have assigned them to.

Core RDA outputs

As outlined above, by 2005 there were only six SRB outputs that counted towards RDAs’ deliverytargets, because of the move towards a regime that measured ‘core’ outputs. These are listed in Table4.7 and are what we have classified as core RDA outputs for the purposes of this meta-evaluation.

Table 4.7: Core RDA outputs

SRB Output Output description

1A (i) Number of jobs created

1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded

1C Number of people trained obtaining qualifications

2C (ii) New businesses supported surviving 52 weeks

6B Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha)

8E Number of community enterprise start ups

Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG data

Other economic outputs

Of the remaining fifty-seven outputs, we have categorised the following twenty-three as othereconomic outputs – outputs that have a distinct economic focus to them, but which are not included inthe RDAs’ core outputs.

Table 4.8: Other economic outputs


1A (iii) Number of construction jobs (person weeks)

1B Number of pupils benefiting from projects to improve attainment

1D Number of residents accessing employment through training advice

1E Number of training weeks

1F (i) Number people trained gaining jobs

1F (ii) Number people trained gaining jobs who were formerly unemployed



1G Number entering self employment

1G (ii) Number entering self employment who were formerly unemployed

1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job

1JNumber of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal and social

development

1K (i)Number of employers in collaborative projects with educational institutions to improve

student performance

1K (ii) Number of students in collaborative projects

1L (i) Number of teachers in target area on placement into business

2A Number of new business start ups

2B (i) New business/commercial floorspace (m2)

2B (ii) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2)

2C (i) New businesses supported

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks

2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB assisted activities

6A Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha)

6C Number of buildings back into use

6D (i) Roads built (km)

6D (ii) Roads improved (km)


Other non-economic outputs

This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being other non-economic outputs.

Table 4.9: Other non-economic outputs


3A (i) Number of private dwellings completed

3A (ii) Number of private dwellings improved

3A (iii) Number of local authority dwellings completed

3A (iv) Number of local authority dwellings improved

3A (v) Number of housing association dwellings completed

3A (vi) Number of housing association dwellings improved

3B Number of dwellings in tenant management organisation

5A (i) Number benefiting community safety initiatives

5A (ii) Aged over 60

5A (iii) Females

5B (i) Number of dwellings with upgraded security

5B (ii) Number of commercial buildings with upgraded security

5C Number of community safety initiatives



5D (i) Number of youth crime prevention initiatives

5D (ii) Number attending crime prevention initiatives

6E Number of traffic calming measures

6F Number of waste management/recycling schemes

7A (i) People access to new health facilities

7A (ii) People access to new sports facilities

7A (iii) People access to new cultural facilities

7A (iv) Number of new health facilities

7A (v) Number of new sports facilities

7A (vi) Number of new cultural facilities

7B (i) Number using improved health facilities

7B (ii) Number using improved sports facilities

7B (iii) Number using improved cultural facilities

7B (iv) Number of health facilities improved

7B (v) Number of sports facilities improved

7B (vi) Number of cultural facilities improved

8A (i) Number of voluntary organisations supported

8A (ii) Number of community organisations supported

8C Number of individuals involved in voluntary work

8D Number of employee volunteering schemes

10A Number of childcare places provided


We have used these categorisations to structure the analysis of the impacts of SRB activities.Sections 5 to 10 of this report include sub-regional breakdowns of expenditure, gross outputs and netoutputs.

Outcomes

SRB Round 6 bidding guidance indicated that “SRB schemes are expected to make a significant andlasting difference to the areas and groups they are targeted on.

16” Desired outcomes included:

improved local areas;

enhanced quality of life of local people;

sustainable economic growth and increased wealth creation;

increased competitiveness;

enhanced employment prospects for local people;

improved housing;

improved community safety;

16 SRB Round 6 Bidding Guidance, ODPM


improved partnership working and capacity; and

improved environment and infrastructure.

Impacts

Overall, long-lasting impacts of SRB expenditure were expected to be:

reduction in concentrated deprivation;

improved health profiles and reduced health inequalities;

improved economic performance;

increased wealth creation;

improved air quality;

increased income and productivity of businesses;

increase in target area employment rates, reduction in numbers and proportion with noqualifications;

sustained improvements in absolute/relative skill levels and employment rates in targetdeprived/disadvantaged areas;

increase in numbers and proportion with high-level qualifications; and

increased community engagement, pride and capability.

The generic logic model we have constructed for the national SRB programme, which is shown inFigure 4.1, is an indicative framework which we have used to structure our analysis of the schemes’outputs and outcomes. It should be remembered that this logic chain has been constructedretrospectively, several years after the schemes themselves took place, and has been used to collatethe evidence from evaluations that were completed without reference to it (and possibly any otherlogic chain). It is, therefore, less effective in this context of a secondary evaluation than it would be fora primary evaluation, and it is clearly only capable of use as an indicator of the national SRBprogramme’s objectives, inputs, outputs and outcomes.


Figure 4.1: Logic model for the national SRB Programme

Market Failure in “one

or all” of labour,

land/property, capital

and housing

Failure of mainstream

programmes to

address the breadth,

depth and interactive

nature of all problems

Institutional incapability

to tackle the problems

in a way that would

break the vicious circle

whereby the problems

of one generation are

passed onto the next

Tackle social exclusion

and promote equality

Enhance the quality of

life of local people in

areas of need, by

reducing gap between

deprived and other

areas

Estimated £5.7billion

funding across six

rounds

£2.64billion between

the six participating

RDAs in Rounds 3-6

Leveraged £26billion

across all six

rounds, including

£9billion from private

sector

63 different outputs

Core RDA outputs –

jobs created,

safeguarded,

training, business

survival, community

enterprise, land

reclamation.

Other economic

outputs – measures

related to training,

business survival,

infrastructure,

targeting of specific

groups.

Other non-economic

outputs – disparate

measures related to

housing, health,

community safety.

Enhanced quality of

life of local people;

Increased business

competitiveness;

Enhanced

employment

prospects for local

people;

Improved economic

performance,

productivity and

wealth creation;

Sustained increase in

target area

employment rates

and absolute/relative

skill levels;

More people with

high-level

qualifications and

fewer people with no

qualifications;

Improved local

areas;

Improved housing;

Improved community

safety;

Improved health

profiles and reduced

health inequalities;

Reduction in

concentrated

deprivation;

Improved

environment and

infrastructure.

Improved air quality;

The design of SRB

Simplify and streamline the

assistance available for

regeneration

Brought together funding

from eighteen previously

separate programmes

Local regeneration

partnerships, tasked with

identifying local need and

developing and delivering

regeneration programmes

accordingly

The activities it supported

were intended to make a

real and lasting impact and

to develop multi-agency

regeneration partnerships

Training

House building

Education

Enterprise

Community

safety and drugs

teaching

Enterprise




and housing;


programmes to



nature of all problems;



in a way that would




passed onto the next;

Desire to tackle social

exclusion and promote

equality;

Desire to enhance the

quality of life of local

people in areas of

need, by reducing gap

between deprived and

other areas.

The design of SRB

Simplify and streamline the

assistance available for

regeneration;

Brought together funding

from eighteen previously

separate programmes;

Local regeneration

partnerships, tasked with

identifying local need and

developing and delivering

regeneration programmes

accordingly;

Intended to make a real

and lasting impact and to

develop multi-agency

regeneration partnerships .

63 different outputs

Core RDA outputs –

jobs created,

safeguarded,

training, business

survival, community

enterprise, land

reclamation;

Other economic

outputs – measures

related to training,

business survival,

infrastructure,

targeting of specific

groups;

Other non-economic

outputs – disparate

measures related to

housing, health,

community safety.

Enhanced quality of

life of local people;

Increased business

competitiveness;

Enhanced

employment

prospects for local

people;

Improved economic

performance,

productivity and

wealth creation;

Sustained increase in

target area

employment rates

and absolute/relative

skill levels;

More people with

high-level

qualifications and

fewer people with no

qualifications.

Improved local

areas;

Improved housing;

Improved community

safety;

Improved health

profiles and reduced

health inequalities;

Reduction in

concentrated

deprivation;

Improved air quality;

Improved

environment and

infrastructure.

Estimated £5.8billion

funding across six

rounds;



RDAs in Rounds 3-

6;


across all six

rounds, including


sector;

Staff;

Materials;

Information;

Partner – in kind.




and housing markets;


programmes to



nature of all problems;



in a way that would




passed on to the next;

Government desire to

tackle social exclusion

and promote equality;

Government desire to

enhance the quality of

life of local people in

areas of need, by

reducing gap between

deprived and other

areas.

Training;

Construction;

Educational

Attainment;

Community safety

initiatives;

Enterprise Support;

Personal and social

development

projects;

Land reclamation;

Road building;

Increasing access to

health/sports/cultural

facilities;

Supporting voluntary

and community

organisations;

Traffic calming

measures;

Waste management

and recycling

schemes;

Childcare provision;

Capacity building

initiatives.

£5.8billion funding

across six rounds;



RDAs in Rounds 3-

6;


across all six

rounds, including


sector;

Staff;

Materials;

Information;

Investment in kind.


Assessment of additionality

Once the reported gross outputs from the evaluations had been collated, the next step was to convertthe recorded gross outputs into estimated net outputs to provide an assessment of the impact ofRDAs’ spending on the SRB programme. As outlined earlier in this section, and as anticipated, therewas very limited additionality information to inform this estimation process from the scheme-levelevaluation evidence we were provided with.

Furthermore, we assessed the potential feasibility of additional research with beneficiaries, as a wayof potentially augmenting the evidence available on SRB impact. Our research, which includedconversations with the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) and the Universityof Cambridge (the national SRB evaluators) and a review of beneficiary information in the initialtranche of Rounds 5 and 6 SRB evaluations in our possession, concluded that there were significantpractical constraints to conducting a beneficiary survey on the required scale:

developing the sample frame would require all SRB projects in Rounds 5 and 6 to be categorisedon each dimension of the sample frame, which would take a long time to complete;

identifying and accessing SRB beneficiaries would be difficult;

nearly 90% of the initial completed evaluations we sourced were finished over two years ago;

many of the programmes’ lead organisations no longer exist;

many key RDA staff have left their jobs; and

partial (at best) records of beneficiaries have been collated and stored.

Given this, it was agreed with the wider RDA impact Steering Group that we would use a similarapproach to that already used in the West Midlands (by AWM) and in the North East (by ONE) toestimate net outputs. Both these meta-evaluations used the additionality coefficients derived in theSRB national evaluation to generate estimates of the regions’ net outputs.

The SRB national evaluation was an eight-year study undertaken by the Department of LandEconomy at the University of Cambridge. The study focused on SRB Rounds 1 and 2. Separateadditionality coefficients were generated for all 63 SRB outputs described previously, based on 20case studies conducted in all regions across the country, including interviews with project managersand work with beneficiaries. The coefficients focused on measuring additionality at the local level. Boththe West Midlands and North East meta-evaluations concluded that the coefficients from the nationalevaluation were likely to be more robust and reliable than anything that could be generated locallyfrom the existing information available. Both evaluations were assessed by PwC as being largely fit forpurpose in the context of the overall RDA impact project.

We have also reviewed evaluations of other national programmes with some similar characteristics tothe SRB programme, such as the New Deal for Communities, the Coalfields Programme andNeighbourhood Management Pathfinders, to see if there is any further information around additionalityin those evaluations that we can use in our work. For example, last year’s interim evaluation of theCoalfields Programme

17considers additionality in some detail. However, while some of the outputs

measured in that report are the same as those of the SRB programme, the specific nature of thecircumstances supported by the Coalfields Programme, the limited number of outputs covered incomparison to SRB and the report’s uncertainty over business-related additionality rates all lead us toconclude that the SRB national evaluation is our best source of information about additionality for thismeta-evaluation.

17 Regenerating the English Coalfields – interim evaluation of the coalfield regeneration programmes – CLG, March 2007


Additionality calculations

Table 4.10 outlines the additionality calculations that we will use for adjusting each region’s core RDAgross outputs into net outputs. These additionality coefficients are taken from the SRB nationalevaluation.

Table 4.10: Additionality coefficients used for generating net core RDA outputs

Output category Proportion of outputsthat are additional

1A (i) Number of jobs created 41%

1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded 43%

1C Number of people trained obtaining qualifications 56%

2C (ii) New businesses supported surviving 52 weeks 44%

6B Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha) 49%

8E Number of community enterprise start-ups 78%

Source: SRB national evaluation

Table 4.11 outlines the additionality calculations that we will use for adjusting each region’s grossother economic outputs into net outputs.

Table 4.11: Additionality coefficients used for generating net other economic outputs


1A (iii) Number of construction jobs 42%

1B Number of pupils benefiting from projects to improve attainment 53%

1D Number of residents accessing employment through training advice 62%

1E Number of training weeks 36%

1F (i) Number of people trained gaining jobs 50%

1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 48%

1G Number entering self employment 57%

1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 56%

1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 61%

1J Number of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal and

social development

47%

1K (i) Number of employers in collaborative projects with educational

institutions to improve student performance

60%

1K (ii) Number of students in collaborative projects 49%

1L (i) Number of teachers in target area on placement into business 61%

2A Number of new business start-ups 42%

2B (i) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2) 36%

2B (ii) New business/commercial floorspace (m2) 45%



2C (i) New businesses supported 44%

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 46%

2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB-assisted

activities

43%

6A Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha) 76%

6C Number of buildings back into use 53%

6D (i) Roads built (km) 53%

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 75%


Table 4.12 outlines the additionality calculations that we will use for adjusting each region’s grossother non-economic outputs into net outputs.

Table 4.12: Additionality coefficients used for generating net other non-economic outputs


3A (i) Number of private dwellings completed 42%

3A (ii) Number of private dwellings improved 47%

3A (iii) Number of local authority dwellings completed 0%

3A (iv) Number of local authority dwellings improved 50%

3A (v) Number of housing association dwellings completed 45%

3A (vi) Number of housing association dwellings improved 50%

3B Number of dwellings in tenant management organisation 65%

5A (i) Number benefiting community safety initiatives 52%

5A (ii) Aged over 60 49%

5A (iii) Females 47%

5B (i) Number of dwellings with upgraded security 49%

5B (ii) Number of commercial buildings with upgraded security 56%

5C Number of community safety initiatives 51%

5D (i) Number of youth crime prevention initiatives 54%

5D (ii) Number attending crime prevention initiatives 70%

6E Number of traffic calming measures 47%

6F Number of waste management/recycling schemes 76%

7A (i) People access to new health facilities 63%

7A (ii) People access to new sports facilities 61%

7A (iii) People access to new cultural facilities 66%

7A (iv) Number of new health facilities 65%

7A (v) Number of new sports facilities 62%

7A (vi) Number of new cultural facilities 68%



7B (i) Number using improved health facilities 63%

7B (ii) Number using improved sports facilities 49%

7B (iii) Number using improved cultural facilities 48%

7B (iv) Number of health facilities improved 50%

7B (v) Number of sports facilities improved 60%

7B (vi) Number of cultural facilities improved 49%

8A (i) Number of voluntary organisations supported 62%

8A (ii) Number of community organisations supported 66%

8C Number of individuals involved in voluntary work 57%

8D Number of employee volunteering schemes 65%

10A Number of childcare places provided 50%


Grossing up of evaluation evidence to cover all SRB Rounds 3 to 6 expenditure

The extent of the evaluation evidence we have received for the meta-evaluation varies between RDAsbut, as Table 4.2 shows, we have received evaluation evidence covering 67% of the six RDAs’ SRBexpenditure during Rounds 3 to 6. Our evidence base for assessing the impact of SRB in the sixregions is, therefore, incomplete. This means we have needed to consider whether and, if so, how to‘gross up’ the results in order to estimate the impact of RDA spending on SRB across all the schemesfunded in Rounds 3 to 6.

We do not believe it is helpful to attempt to gross up the impacts based on the available evidence fortwo main reasons:

the differences between the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 are so great that we cannot be surehow representative the sample of SRB schemes for which there are usable evaluations is of theoverall population of SRB schemes: this means that the potential margins of error around anygrossed up estimates are likely to be considerable, even assuming it was clear which grossing upmethod was most appropriate, and so we would have limited confidence in the results; and

we expect to see further evaluation evidence for some SRB programmes in the RDAs in thecoming months: in some cases, these additional evaluations account for a significant amount ofexpenditure and will fill key gaps in the evidence base and, therefore, by not grossing up now, wewill be able to complement the evidence of this meta-evaluation in the final analysis of RDAspending.

We have, therefore, decided that the best option at this stage is to present results and conclusionsbased on the evidence we currently have.

Value for money

The national, North East and West Midlands SRB evaluations all calculated net additional benefits per£20,000 of net additional public expenditure (SRB expenditure plus net public sector leverage), toprovide an assessment of value for money. We have considered whether to perform a similarcalculation as part of this meta-evaluation but believe it would be inappropriate to do so for severalreasons.


SRB schemes were set up to achieve a variety of objectives, some of which were economic but manyof which were not. In order to undertake a meaningful assessment of value for money, it is importantto recognise the diversity of outputs and impacts and relate them to the relevant inputs. This can bedone either by finding a way of disaggregating expenditure so that it can be attributed to specificoutputs or by finding a way of representing the overall outputs.

We do not have the data needed to relate specific outputs to particular elements of expenditure, notleast because expenditure that went towards achieving economic objectives sometimes also wenttowards achieving objectives that were more environmental or social in nature. We might also seek tocompare economic outputs with the expenditure responsible for generating these outputs. Again, theevaluation reports we have seen understandably provide no basis for such an analysis. Without thisdata we are not able to compare inputs (expenditure) with the relevant outputs on a disaggregatedbasis.

The alternative would be to compare overall bundles of expenditure at the individual programme levelwith bundles of programme outputs. Given the diversity of SRB schemes, this would require a way tobe found of expressing the outputs of SRB expenditure using a common numeraire. Many of the otherevaluations of RDA spending have sought to express the impact in terms of the incremental (gross)value added (GVA) within the region. In practice, however, it is difficult to express the social andenvironmental outputs of SRB programmes in terms of value added. Moreover, few of the evaluationswe have received express the economic outputs in terms of GVA. Consequently, we believe that itwould be potentially unhelpful and misleading to seek to assess value for money of SRB schemes atan aggregate level.

In the circumstances, therefore, we have not sought to undertake a value for money calculation acrossthe programme.

Limitations of the methodology

The work undertaken as part of the meta-evaluation has been a largely desk-based review of existingevaluations of SRB schemes, collated and analysed to estimate the impact of SRB spending by RDAsin Rounds 3 to 6. Wherever possible we reviewed final evaluations; where this was not possible wereviewed whatever evidence was available, such as interim evaluations, draft final evaluations,scheme reviews or monitoring and output data. It is important to note the inevitable limitations of thismethodology:

This is not a primary evaluation – We are entirely dependent on the quality and quantity of theevaluations we have received, rather than being able to review RDAs’ SRB programmes at firsthand. In practice, this has meant that we have had to rely on a range of evaluations that wereundertaken to different standards, for different reasons and at different points in time. Although thisapproach was the most practical in the circumstances, it is not as good as being able to conduct aprimary evaluation.

There was no clear evaluation framework for SRB – The timing of many of the SRB evaluationsmeans that they were undertaken before the IEF was established within the RDA network. Asidefrom the Green Book, this meant that there was no clear framework to guide the scope of theevaluations. As a consequence, the evaluations vary in their scope and approach.

The evaluation evidence base is incomplete – The SRB evaluation evidence base we havereceived does not cover all SRB schemes in scope, despite the strenuous efforts of RDAs to trackdown as much evidence for us as they could, and not all the evaluation evidence we have receivedis usable. It is evident that not all SRB schemes conducted an evaluation, even though anevaluation was a mandatory requirement of SRB funding. We are therefore only dealing with asample of the overall population of SRB schemes.

Corporate memory of the SRB programme is limited – It is a long time since many of the SRBschemes began, and in some cases it is also a long time since they finished. This has meant thatmany SRB teams have been disbanded and many of the people with relevant knowledge about the


RDAs’ SRB programmes have moved on. This has made it harder to gain a full understanding ofthe purpose, activities and outcomes of those programmes.

Most evaluations have not involved direct contact with beneficiaries – A wholly IEF-compliantevaluation of SRB would have involved direct contact with beneficiaries to get evidence of theimpact that SRB schemes have had, to understand more about what would have happened in theabsence of these interventions and to determine the dimensions of additionality. In practice, thishas rarely happened.

The estimates of additionality reflect local rather than regional impacts – The additionalitycoefficients we have taken from the national evaluation are estimates of local, rather than regionalimpacts (based on SRB programmes from Rounds 1 and 2). Although they have been used byAWM and ONE, they are not ideal, although this approach has been accepted by the wider RDAimpact Steering Group.

Stakeholder consultations

Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with six key strategicstakeholders in each region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitativeinformation about the nature and impact of SRB in the region, to help us understand some of thenuances that were not necessarily apparent from reading evaluation reports.

A topic guide was produced and agreed with the RDAs, and stakeholder consultations took placeduring June and July. The evaluation team spoke to a range of people, both within the RDA andamongst external partners, to try to understand more about the RDAs’ overall SRB programmes andabout some of the issues related to the delivery of individual projects and schemes. Who we spoke towas entirely at the discretion of the RDAs – the six stakeholders were nominated by the RDAs, as thepeople they believed would be the most helpful to us in this task. A full list of stakeholder consultees isincluded at Appendix C.

The stakeholder consultations proved beneficial in augmenting the evaluation evidence we havereviewed and in helping to inform our thinking about the impact of SRB in the regions.


5 The impact of SRB in the Eastof England

Introduction

This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the East ofEngland region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this reportand includes:

background information on the East of England region;

information on SRB expenditure in the region;

an outline of the amount of evaluation evidence we have received;

an analysis of gross output information;

assessment of output performance against forecast;

an estimate of net outputs and an assessment of additionality;

an assessment of outcomes and impacts; and

a consideration of Strategic Added Value.

Overview of the East of England region

The East of England is one of the largest and most diverse regions in England. It covers over 19,000km

2of land across the six counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk

and Suffolk. The East of England is predominantly rural, with fewer large cities than the other Englishregions.

The region’s close proximity to London provides a number of strategic advantages, such as access tointernational gateways and transport corridors, leaving it well placed to take advantage of theincreasing globalisation of business activity.

The East of England has a growing population of around 5.5 million. As in the rest of the UK, theregional population is ageing (17% of the population is over 65). Cultural diversity in the region isincreasing, with a growing black and ethnic minority population.

With a total Gross Value Added (GVA) of £109.9 billion in 2006, equating to 9.7% of the UK’s output,the East of England is the fourth largest regional economy in the UK, a ranking which it has heldconsistently in the last ten years. During this time the regional economy has experienced averageyear-on-year growth of 5%, in line with the UK average. Regional GVA per head has risen from


£13,093 in 1997 to £19,599 in 2006, making it one of only three regions above the UK GVA per headaverage

18. The region boasts high levels of employment (77%)

19compared to the national average. It

has a particularly strong service sector and is renowned for its high quality research and developmentactivity, conducted by both private and public sector organisations.

As outlined in Table 3.3, Index of Multiple Deprivation Data from 2004 indicates that 3.9% of the 8,120most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs)

20in England are in the Eastern Region. Therefore the East

of England is a relatively prosperous region (in national terms), with the fewest number of verydeprived SOAs (316 in the bottom quartile of the IMD). The East of England is characterised by smallpockets of deprivation, surrounded by relatively affluent areas.

We have divided the East of England into the sub-regions identified for the Investing in Communities(IiC) programme (EEDA’s successor to the SRB programme). These are largely county level sub-regions, with Peterborough, Haven Gateway and Thames Gateway as additional sub-regions. Table5.1 shows significant variation in the number of SOAs each sub-region has in the bottom IMD quartile.

Table 5.1: SRB deprivation figures for sub-regions within EEDA

Sub-region Number of SOAs inthe sub-region in

bottom IMD quartilenationally

% of SOAs in the sub-region as a whole

% of regional total inlowest IMD quartile

nationally

Bedfordshire and Luton 48 11% 15.2%

Cambridgeshire 9 10% 2.8%

Essex 9 13% 2.8%

Haven Gateway 34 13% 10.8%

Hertfordshire 6 19% 1.9%

Norfolk 73 15% 23.1%

Peterborough 31 3% 9.8%

Suffolk 16 5% 5.1%

Thames Gateway 90 12% 28.5%

Total 316 100% 100.0%


As outlined in Table 5.1, almost half of the most deprived SOAs in the East of England are in theNorfolk and Thames Gateway sub-regions. According to the 2004 IMD data, the highest concentrationof deprived SOAs in the East are in the Norfolk towns of Norwich and Great Yarmouth.

Regional context

Table 5.2 provides an overview of SRB activity in the region, outlining the number and proportion ofschemes that took place in each SRB Round and providing a comparison with the national picture.

18 Office of National Statistics website: see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gva1207.pdf19 Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England, Final Draft submitted to government – June 200820 See 5 for more detail on Super Output Areas


Table 5.2: Number of SRB schemes in the Eastern Region

SRB Round Number of SRB schemes in theregion (% of total regional schemes)

Number of SRB schemes nationally(% of total national schemes)

Round 1 13 (20.0%) 201 (19.6%)

Round 2 9 (13.8%) 172 (16.7%)

Round 3 9 (13.8%) 182 (17.7%)

Round 4 7 (10.8%) 121 (11.8%)

Round 5 11 (16.9%) 163 (15.9%)

Round 6 16 (24.6%) 189 (18.4%)

Overall Total 65 (100.0%) 1,028 (100.0%)

Rounds 3-6 Total 43 (66.2%) 655 (63.7%)

Source: CLG

The East of England ran fewer SRB schemes than any other region in England, which is probably dueto its relatively low levels of deprivation. This is true of the SRB programme as a whole, as well as forthose Rounds which form the basis of this meta-evaluation (i.e. Rounds 3 to 6).

The number of SRB schemes in the East of England grew steadily after Round 4, in line with theoverall national pattern. Round 6 involved the largest number of SRB schemes in the East.

It should be noted that EEDA identified an additional four schemes for Round 6. These schemes werenot listed among the CLG successful bids. We were unable to identify any conclusive evidence thatthese schemes were directly funded by CLG. We have therefore assumed that the CLG list is correctand have not included these schemes in the meta-evaluation.

SRB expenditure

Table 5.3 provides an overview of budgeted SRB expenditure per Round in the region, outlining theamount and proportion of expenditure that took place in each SRB Round and again providing acomparison with the national picture.

Table 5.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure

SRB Round SRB Expenditure (£million)

% of region’s totalSRB expenditure

% of national SRBRound expenditure

Round 1 25.1 17.8% 2.3%

Round 2 35.3 25.1% 3.1%

Round 3 18.6 13.2% 2.0%

Round 4 8.7 6.1% 2.7%

Round 5 20.6 14.6% 2.0%

Round 6 32.7 23.2% 2.7%

Overall total 140.9 100.0% 2.4%

Rounds 3-6 Total 80.5 57.1% 2.3%

Source: CLG


As Table 5.3 shows, the East of England received moderate levels of SRB funding in comparison tothe national picture. In fact, the East received less SRB funding than any other region. This is perhapsto be expected, given its IMD profile. In fact the East of England received the smallest amount of SRBfunding in every Round apart from Round 6, where the South West received approximately £1 millionless.

Table 5.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of EEDA’s budgeted expenditure per SRB Round.

Table 5.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round, per sub-region (£ million)

Sub-region Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Totals

Bedfordshire & Luton 1.1 0.3 2.0 15.8 19.2

Cambridgeshire 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.5 2.1

Essex 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.4 3.3

Haven Gateway 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.5 2.7

Hertfordshire 7.3 2.7 2.6 1.1 13.8

Norfolk 2.5 1.9 2.4 5.3 12.1

Peterborough 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.9

Suffolk 5.0 0.6 1.4 2.0 9.0

Thames Gateway 2.7 0.3 2.8 6.1 11.9

Region-wide 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5

Total 18.6 8.7 20.6 32.7 80.5

Source: PwC analysis of CLG data

At a sub-regional level budgeted SRB expenditure broadly reflects the IMD data, with the top threemost deprived sub-regions (Thames Gateway, Norfolk and Bedfordshire and Luton) receiving thegreatest proportion of SRB expenditure overall. However, it was noted by a key stakeholder that inearlier Rounds the SRB funding may have been skewed towards the sub-regions that were notnecessarily the most in need. This was because some sub-regions, like Hertfordshire, were better atwriting bids than others. This led to EEDA becoming increasingly involved in developing bids, devotingresources to capacity building in the most deprived areas in order to increase their capability to writeand win bids for SRB and other funding sources. This focus on capacity building increased in laterfunding Rounds (i.e. Rounds 5 and 6).

Table 5.5 outlines actual SRB expenditure by EEDA between 2002/03 and 2006/07, which is the‘relevant expenditure’ period in the overall RDA impact evaluation.

Table 5.5: SRB actual expenditure between 2002-2007

Year SRB expenditure (£ million)

2002/03 28.0

2003/04 16.6

2004/05 10.9

2005/06 7.0

2006/07 2.4

Total 64.9

Source: EEDA


EEDA’s total relevant expenditure for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is £384.8million. This means that SRB accounts for 17% of EEDA’s expenditure in the overall RDA impactevaluation.

The figures in Table 5.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that wehave evaluated, as some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from2002/03 to 2006/07. However, all the Rounds 3 to 6 outputs are included in the meta-evaluation,which means that care is needed when comparing inputs with outputs.

Evidence gathering

Evaluation evidence

The meta-evaluation is a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations and other data sources forSRB schemes. We are therefore heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of evaluation evidencewe have received from the RDA.

Due to the time that had elapsed between the end of the SRB programme and the beginning of ourmeta-evaluation, there were significant issues in identifying and gathering usable evidence. Theissues encountered in evidence gathering across the regions are discussed in detail in section 4.

For the East of England, a number of the evaluation reports received covered more than one SRBRound (e.g. Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West HertsPartnership Group and Building on the Foundations, Kings Lynn). This created difficulties in terms ofseparating outputs and understanding the impact of individual schemes.

Another evaluation (Regenerating Peterborough) took a case study approach, identifying outputs forcertain projects rather than the entire SRB scheme in question. This approach therefore is likely tohave underestimated the gross outputs of the whole scheme, as it did not report all the outputs of allthe projects. A further evaluation for Lowestoft into Work was an interim evaluation, meaning thatwhile the targets were expressed for the entire scheme (2000 to 2006), the outputs achieved andactual funding were to year three of the scheme (March 2003). Similarly, the Luton Dunstable report isbased on progress to March 2004, which represents roughly half of the seven-year scheme and whichis also likely to underestimate the outputs from this scheme. No final evaluation report was identifiedfor either scheme.

Table 5.6 outlines the amount of usable evidence we received per SRB Round and indicates thecoverage of schemes and expenditure we have achieved. For the purposes of our meta-evaluation,usable means some form of evaluation report with final (or assumed final) output and expendituredata, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources.

Table 5.6: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round

SRBRound

Total numberof SRB

schemes





Expenditurefor thatRound

Amount ofbudgeted

Expenditurefor that

Round (£million)

Round 3 9 4 44.4% 72.0% 13.4

Round 4 7 2 28.6% 39.4% 3.4

Round 5 11 3 27.3% 51.2% 10.5

Round 6 16 7 43.8% 57.8% 18.9

Total 43 16 37.2% 57.4% 46.2

Source: PwC, based on evaluation evidence received from EEDA. Expenditure in this table refers to budgeted SRB

expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from CLG data.


Note: Four additional Round 6 SRB schemes were identified by EEDA but have not been included in this meta-evaluation, as

they were not in the official CLG list and we were unable to confirm if they were official SRB schemes.

As Table 5.6 indicates, we have received usable evidence for almost two-fifths of the SRB schemes inthe region, accounting for almost three-fifths of the overall programme expenditure in Rounds 3 to 6.There is considerable variation in the level of coverage by Round, from 27% of schemes in Round 5 to44% in Round 3, from 39% of expenditure in Round 4 to 72% in Round 3, and from £3.4 million ofexpenditure in Round 4 to £18.9 million of expenditure in Round 6.

Table 5.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme, including evidencethat we were ultimately not able to use.


SRBRound

Number ofschemes

under £1m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Number ofschemes

£1m - £3m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Number ofschemes

above £3m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Round 3 3 0 4 2 2 2

Round 4 4 2 3 2 0 0

Round 5 4 3 6 3 1 1

Round 6 9 9 4 1 3 1

Total 20 14 17 8 6 4

Source: PwC. Expenditure categories relate to SRB money only.

Table 5.7 indicates lower levels of coverage of medium-spend schemes, as evaluation evidence wasreceived for less than half of the £1 million to £3 million schemes. There were higher levels ofcoverage among schemes of less than £1 million or more than £3 million, with approximately two-thirds coverage of each. The level of coverage increases with each Round. However, as can be seenwhen comparing Tables 5.6 and 5.7, not all evaluations provided usable evidence in terms of outputdata. We received evaluation evidence covering 26 schemes, of which we considered 16 to be usable.

In this meta-evaluation we looked at a range of evidence to help us understand the SRB schemes andtheir impact. Wherever possible we reviewed final evaluations; where this was not possible wereviewed whatever evidence was available, such as interim evaluations, draft evaluations, annualreviews, forward strategies or monitoring and output data.

Not all of the evidence we reviewed was usable for our purposes. We were only able to use anevaluation report that contained final (or assumed final) output and expenditure data, or monitoringdata that we were able to check for consistency with other sources.

We looked at monitoring data and annual reviews provided by EEDA in order to try to supplement theoutput data where evaluation reports were incomplete or missing. We assumed that the datacontained in independent evaluations was correct, so monitoring data needed to be consistent withevaluation evidence across a range of evaluations in order to be considered reliable for our purposes.

In some instances we were able to confirm the consistency of monitoring data with the evaluations wehad received and we were able to use the monitoring data to augment our evidence base for twoschemes in this way. However, if we were unable to confirm the consistency of the monitoring data, orif the monitoring data was incomplete, we took the decision to either not use the data at all or to use itonly where it matched what was available in evaluations but covered more output categories.

The annual reviews we received proved to be very useful in terms of supplementing qualitativecomments, and these were utilised as much as possible. Table 5.8 provides an overview of theamount of output and expenditure data we found in the evaluation evidence we received.



SRB Round Total number ofevaluations

received

Evaluations withactual and forecast

expenditure included

Evaluationswith gross

outputsincluded

Evaluationswith net outputs

included

Round 3 4 4 4 0

Round 4 4 2 2 0

Round 5 7 1 3 0

Round 6 11 5 7 0

Total 26 12 16 0

Source: PwC

As shown in Table 5.8, approximately three-fifths of the evaluation reports we received consideredgross outputs. However, there was a lack of consideration of additionality at a regional level – none ofthe evaluation reports that we reviewed gave any assessment of net outputs.

As anticipated, the absence of relevant information on additionality means that we will need to applythe additionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to EEDA’s gross SRB outputs, in orderto estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, thisapproach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the bestoption available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4,which explains the meta-evaluation’s approach and methodology.


Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with six key strategicstakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitativeinformation about the nature and impact of SRB in the region – in effect, to understand some of thenuances that may not be apparent from reading evaluation reports.

We spoke to a mixture of people, both within EEDA and amongst external partners, to try tounderstand more about EEDA’s overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to thedelivery of individual schemes and projects. Who we spoke to was entirely at the discretion of the RDA– the six stakeholders were nominated by the EEDA, as the people they believed would be the mosthelpful to us in this task. A full list of stakeholder consultees can be found at Appendix C.

The stakeholder consultations have been very beneficial in augmenting the evaluation evidence wehave reviewed.

Gross outputs

We have collected gross output data from the evaluation evidence we have reviewed across the sixty-three official SRB output categories. A template was produced (and agreed with all the participatingRDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidencewe received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categoriesthat were contained in the evaluations we reviewed.

This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRBoutputs across the board. However, we have also been mindful of the need to capture a range ofqualitative information as well. To this end, the recording template contained a range of qualitativefields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; community


engagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths andweaknesses.

This recognition of schemes’ economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs isimportant in terms of assessing performance. We have separated the sixty-three gross outputs wehave collected data for into three categories – core, other economic and other non-economic.

Core RDA outputs

The outputs used to measure SRB performance evolved over the lifetime of the programme. By 2005,when the RDAs moved towards a regime that measured ‘core’ outputs, there were only six SRBoutputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets. We have classified these as core RDA outputs forthe purposes of this meta-evaluation.

Table 5.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the EasternRegion. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted expenditureof £46.2 million, or 57.4% of the budgeted £80.5 million SRB spend.


Table 5.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the Eastern Region

Output categoryBedfordshire

& LutonEssex

HavenGateway

Hertfordshire Norfolk Peterborough SuffolkThamesGateway

Total

1A (i) Jobs created 197 13 94 312 143 513 184 163 1,618

1A (ii) Jobs safeguarded 21 13 0 428 116 24 21 6 629

1C People trained obtaining

qualifications528 271 623 1,846 412 550 2,004 1,866 8,100

2C (ii) New business supported

surviving 52 wks12 0 142 1 0 0 4 6 165

6B Land improved/ Reclaimed for

development (Ha)1 0 7 0 1 0 0 12 21

8E No. of community enterprise

start-ups12 0 15 6 2 3 52 6 96

Source: PwC analysis, based on SRB evaluation evidence received from EEDA


The evaluation evidence which we reviewed shows that in gross terms the SRB programme hascreated 1,618 jobs – around a third of which were a result of the Regenerating Peterborough scheme– and safeguarded a further 629 jobs, mainly stemming from three schemes in the Hertfordshire sub-region.

The SRB programme also led to 8,100 people gaining qualifications, a significant proportion of whichresulted from schemes in the Suffolk, Thames and Haven Gateway areas. Of the new businessessupported, 165 survived for at least one year – these were predominantly in the Haven Gateway sub-region, as a result of the new Enterprise Centre built under the Brighter Future for East ColchesterSRB scheme. Twenty-one hectares of land were improved or reclaimed for development – this waschiefly in the Thames and Haven Gateway sub-regions, as a result of the Tilbury Port and A BrighterFuture for East Colchester schemes. The SRB programme resulted in the establishment of almost 100community enterprise start-ups, almost half of which emerged from the Working Together – SuffolkRural scheme.


Of the remaining fifty-seven outputs, we have categorised twenty-three as ‘other economic’ outputs –outputs that have a distinct economic focus to them, but which are not included in the RDA’s coreoutputs.

Table 5.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe Eastern Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgetedexpenditure of £46.2 million, or 57.4% of the budgeted £80.5 million SRB spend.


Table 5.10: Gross ‘other economic’ outputs in the Eastern Region

Output categoryBedford-shire &Luton

EssexHaven

GatewayHertford-

shireNorfolk

Peter-borough

SuffolkThamesGateway

Total

1A (iii) Number of construction jobs (person weeks) 1,309 0 8,292 1,395 1,282 0 8,495 57 20,830

1B Number of pupils benefiting from projects to improve

attainment4,934 23 0 27,376 610 745 3,451 0 37,139

1D Number of residents accessing employment through

training advice226 39 210 4,141 34 31 135 315 5,131

1E Number of training weeks 2,437 965 577 9,465 1,859 43 14,712 4,084 34,142

1F (i) Number of people trained gaining jobs 105 5 84 321 1 0 171 302 989

1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 67 11 53 86 0 0 109 289 615

1G Number entering self employment 85 2 73 41 25 0 81 42 349

1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 42 0 12 18 16 0 33 42 163

1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who

gain job75 24 0 371 0 0 50 23 543

1J Number of young people benefiting from projects to

promote personal and social development16,246 85 8,235 23,671 4,462 1,313 7,159 8,121 69,292

1K (i) Number of employers in collaborative projects

with educational institutions to improve student

performance

13 7 0 476 9 70 84 0 659

1K (ii) Number of students in collaborative projects 167 272 0 2,890 116 0 0 42 3,487

1L (i) Number of teachers in target area on placement

into business0 0 0 232 0 0 0 0 232

2A Number of new business start-ups 66 3 28 79 31 0 66 34 307

2B (i) New business/commercial floorspace (m2) 0 0 420 0 0 0 959 37,167 38,546

2B (ii) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2) 513 0 650 200 0 0 1,058 1,774 4,195

2C (i) New businesses supported 66 21 110 238 0 0 1 21 457



EssexHaven

GatewayHertford-

shireNorfolk

Peter-borough


Total

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 12 0 186 20 0 0 1 6 225

2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result

of SRB-assisted activities1,285 306 726 679 221 0 239 424 3,880

6A Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha) 5 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 13

6C Number of buildings back into use 3 0 0 2 7 0 89 50 151

6D (i) Roads built (km) 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 4

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 10



As well as the core outputs discussed above, the evaluation evidence we reviewed identified thefollowing ‘other economic’ outputs in gross terms relating to jobs, training and education.

Over 20,000 person weeks of construction jobs were created – these were chiefly arising from theKirkley Regeneration and Brighter Future for East Colchester schemes in the Suffolk and HavenGateway sub-regions; around 37,000 pupils benefited from projects to improve attainment, over half ofwhich was attributed to the Borehamwood scheme in the Hertfordshire sub-region; more than 5,000residents accessed employment through SRB-funded training advice – the vast majority of theseparticipated in one of the four SRB schemes in the Hertfordshire sub-region, of which the mostsignificant in terms of numbers was Herts Youth Life Chances.

Over 34,000 weeks of training were provided through the SRB schemes for which we have usableevaluation evidence – these were largely in the Suffolk and Hertfordshire sub-regions. Almost 1,000people who received SRB-funded training gained jobs, of which approximately one-third took part inschemes in Hertfordshire. Thames Gateway schemes accounted for another third. Moreover, theschemes led to 615 people gaining jobs who were formerly unemployed – again, the ThamesGateway sub-region showed a particular strength in this area.

The evaluation reports indicated that in gross terms 349 people entered self-employment, with 163people who were formerly unemployed entering self-employment. 543 people from the disadvantagedgroups targeted by the SRB programme gained a job, with the majority of this activity (68%) being inthe Hertfordshire sub-region.

Almost 70,000 young people were said to have benefited from SRB projects to promote personal andsocial development. Over a third of these young people were involved in schemes in the Hertfordshiresub-region, with a further quarter benefiting from the Luton Dunstable scheme in the Bedfordshire andLuton sub-region. Over 650 employers and nearly 3,500 students took part in collaborative projects.Again, a significant proportion of these (72% and 83% respectively) originated from schemes in theHertfordshire sub-region. More than 230 teachers in the Hertfordshire sub-region took up businessplacements as part of the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford andSouth West Herts Partnership schemes.

Over 300 business start-ups were created, according to the evaluation evidence we reviewed. Aquarter of these start-ups were in the Hertfordshire sub-region, with the Bedfordshire and Luton andSuffolk sub-regions each accounting for a further fifth of the overall gross output. More than 450 newbusinesses were supported through the SRB programme, over half of which were involved in theBuilding Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnershipschemes in the Hertfordshire sub-region. Of the new businesses that received support, 225 survived78 weeks, of which the vast majority of these (83%) were involved in the Brighter Future for EastColchester scheme in Haven Gateway. Nearly 3,900 businesses were advised as a result of SRB-assisted activities, a third of which were reached through the Luton Dunstable scheme. 96% of the38,546m

2of improved commercial floorspace was attributed to the Tilbury Port scheme in the Thames

Gateway sub-region. A further 4,195 m2

of new floorspace was developed, again largely attributable tothe Tilbury Port scheme (42%), with the two Lowestoft schemes contributing a further 25%.

In terms of environmental improvements, the evidence reviewed suggests that 13 hectares of landwas improved or reclaimed for open space, over a third of which was attributed to the Luton Dunstablescheme. The Kirkley Regeneration Initiative in Suffolk contributed to 58% of the 151 buildings put backinto use. 4 kilometres of new roads were built in the region, as a result of the Tilbury Port (ThamesGateway), Brighter Future for East Colchester (Haven Gateway) and Cobholm & Lichfield CommunityPartnership (Thames Gateway) schemes. A further 10 kilometres of roads were improved, 80% ofwhich were a result of the Luton Dunstable scheme.


This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being ‘other non-economic’ outputs. The range of outputs covered here is an illustration of the varying non-economicmotives behind many SRB schemes.

Table 5.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemesin the Eastern Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for


budgeted expenditure of £46.2 million, or 57.4% of the budgeted £80.5 million SRB spend.


Table 5.11: Gross ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the Eastern Region


EssexHaven

GatewayHertford-

shireNorfolk

Peter-borough


Total

3A (i) Number of private dwellings

completed0 0 203 0 0 0 0 0 203

3A (ii) Number of private dwellings

improved39 0 0 5 37 0 247 0 328

3A (iii) Number of local authority

dwellings completed0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A (iv) Number of local authority

dwellings improved32 0 0 65 282 0 0 0 379

3A (v) Number of housing

association dwellings completed0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 93

3A (vi) Number of housing

association dwellings improved0 0 0 3,196 0 0 22 0 3,218

3B Number of dwellings in tenant

management organisation0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5A (i) Number benefiting

community safety initiatives10,315 0 520 38,481 9,082 3,342 3,430 36,350 101,520

5A (ii) Aged over 60 2,354 0 66 10,970 1,150 103 0 4,394 19,037

5A (iii) Females 5,264 0 156 6,446 2,267 401 0 11,380 25,914

5B (i) Number of dwellings with

upgraded security1,278 0 0 4,324 3,691 0 263 94 9,650

5B (ii) Number of commercial

buildings with upgraded security93 0 0 77 9 0 20 31 230

5C Number of community safety

initiatives128 0 117 658 13 23 66 37 1,042

5D (i) Number of youth crime 63 0 19 33 13 18 41 8 195



EssexHaven

GatewayHertford-

shireNorfolk

Peter-borough


Total

prevention initiatives

5D (ii) Number attending crime

prevention initiatives13,885 0 1,098 945 160 54 0 0 16,142

6E Number of traffic calming

measures4 0 1 4 0 0 2 2 13

6F Number of waste

management/recycling schemes0 0 0 0 0 0 3 98 101

7A (i) People access to new health

facilities20,083 0 7,068 7,510 5,914 1,017 0 0 41,592

7A (ii) People access to new sports

facilities4,763 0 7,572 53,221 723 81 0 0 66,360

7A (iii) People access to new

cultural facilities62,866 0 8,471 17,403 1,387 1,376 0 52,349 143,852

7A (iv) Number of new health

facilities6 0 1 13 11 0 4 0 35

7A (v) Number of new sports

facilities4 1 4 1 4 0 2 98 114

7A (vi) Number of new cultural

facilities5 30 1 8 4 0 2 9 59

7B (i) Number using improved

health facilities1,065 0 0 1,977 1,369 0 0 0 4,411

7B (ii) Number using improved

sports facilities2,791 0 0 32,612 106 0 0 0 35,509

7B (iii) Number using improved

cultural facilities504 97 365 5,935 32 0 0 31,047 37,980

7B (iv) Number of health facilities

improved7 0 4 9 3 0 1 0 24



EssexHaven

GatewayHertford-

shireNorfolk

Peter-borough


Total

7B (v) Number of sports facilities

improved4 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 9

7B (vi) Number of cultural facilities

improved2 2 0 15 0 0 0 7 26

8A (i) Number of voluntary

organisations supported466 545 127 644 86 97 174 74 2,213

8A (ii) Number of community

organisations supported385 630 302 250 95 77 259 110 2,108

8C Number of individuals involved

in voluntary work756 229 3,985 2,822 600 643 415 719 10,169

8D Number of employee

volunteering schemes1 117 0 40 1 0 26 6 191

10A Number of childcare places

provided96 40 515 519 160 105 580 20 2,035



In terms of the housing-related gross outputs, none of the evaluation reports we reviewed for the Eastof England recorded any gross outputs in terms of:

the number of local authority dwellings completed (3A (iii)); or

the number of dwellings in tenant management organisation (3B).

This is despite the Kirkley Regeneration Initiative having a target of 30 dwellings in tenantmanagement organisation.

Over 200 private dwellings were completed as a result of the Brighter Future for East Colchesterscheme in Haven Gateway. A further 328 private dwellings were improved; three-quarters of thisactivity was through the Kirkley Regeneration Initiative in Suffolk. Roughly three-quarters of the 379improved local authority dwellings were attributed to SRB schemes in the Norfolk sub-region. 93housing association dwellings were completed through the Brighter Future for East Colchesterscheme and 3,218 were improved, largely as a result of the Borehamwood scheme in Hertfordshire.

In terms of community safety or crime prevention initiatives, over 100,000 people benefited fromaround 1,000 community safety initiatives. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sub-region with the mostcommunity safety initiatives (Hertfordshire with 658) was the sub-region with the most overallbeneficiaries (38,481). It also reached more than half of the 19,037 over 60s benefiting from suchschemes. However, more than a third of all people benefiting from community safety initiatives arosefrom 13 such initiatives in the Tilbury Port scheme in Thames Gateway. Furthermore, out of nearly26,000 females benefiting from community safety initiatives, the Tilbury Port initiatives accounted foralmost double the number of female beneficiaries than that of the 658 initiatives in Hertfordshire.

Security was upgraded in close to 10,000 dwellings and 230 commercial buildings. Around 200 youthcrime prevention initiatives were facilitated by SRB funding, and these were attended by more than16,000 people. The Luton Dunstable scheme was the chief contributor in terms of crime preventioninitiatives. However, it should be noted that the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxheyand Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group evaluation states that a number of schemeshave over-claimed in terms of outputs 5A (i) and 5B (i). No adjusted figures are offered.

Environmental outputs from the SRB programme include 13 traffic calming measures and 101 wastemanagement and recycling schemes (the waste management/recycling was mainly a result of theTilbury Port scheme).

The SRB programme also led to new or improved community facilities. In terms of new facilities,almost 42,000 people had access to 35 new health facilities, around 66,000 were accessing 114 newsports facilities and nearly 114,000 people accessed 59 new cultural facilities, according to theevaluation evidence we reviewed. Interestingly, although half of the new cultural facilities weredeveloped in Essex as a result of the Harlow Community Connections scheme, no one was reportedto have access to these facilities. This appears to be an oversight in the evaluation; however, nofurther explanation was given in the evaluation report. This is not restricted to Essex, as similar issuesare noted in Suffolk and Thames Gateway. Conversely, despite there being no record of the numberof new facilities developed in the Regenerating Peterborough evaluation, a number of people wererecorded as accessing new health, sports and cultural facilities. Once more the Building Up, ReachingOut Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group evaluationstates that for Westfield Adult Education Project the total population in the area has been giveninstead of the number of people actually accessing (attending) the centre – again, no adjusted figuresare offered.

The SRB schemes improved 24 health facilities, which were used by over 4,000 people. This activitywas mainly in Hertfordshire, with 38% of improved facilities and 45% of beneficiaries. Nine sportsfacilities were improved to the benefit of around 36,000 beneficiaries, 90% of which were using theimproved facilities in Borehamwood. Twenty-six cultural facilities were improved (around three-fifths ofthese in the Hertfordshire sub-region). However, the most significant output in terms of the number ofusers was observed in Thames Gateway, as a result of the seven cultural facilities improved as part ofthe Tilbury Port SRB scheme.


The gross outputs on the community and voluntary sector include support for 2,213 voluntary and2,108 community organisations. More than 10,000 individuals were involved in voluntary work andnearly 200 employees were involved in volunteering schemes, of which more than 60% was throughthe Harlow Community Connections scheme in Essex.

The final output category is childcare. The SRB programme contributed to the provision of 2,035childcare places, over a quarter of which were through the Kirkley Regeneration Initiative in Suffolk.

Performance against forecast

Table 5.12 provides an indication of how SRB schemes have performed in comparison to theirforecast impact in respect of core RDA outputs.

Table 5.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the Eastern Region

Output category Regional performance




2C (ii) Surviving 52 weeks 36%




When comparing actual performance to the outputs forecast, the East of England presents a mixedpicture. The region has exceeded targets in terms of the number of jobs safeguarded and the numberof community enterprise start-ups, but missed targets against the other four core outputs – relativelymarginally in some cases (jobs created, qualifications obtained and land for development) andsignificantly in terms of number of supported new businesses surviving for one year.

In terms of the over-performing outputs, this is a result of a small number of schemes which havesignificantly exceeded their targets. Targets for the number of jobs safeguarded were exceeded bymore than double in Borehamwood and by more than four times in the case of Building Up, ReachingOut Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership. Similarly, the over-performance in terms of community enterprises was a result of the Brighter Future for East Colchesterscheme achieving more than seven times its target, while Working Together – Suffolk Rural achievedalmost five times its original target. This level of achievement may reflect a number of possible factors:an unexpectedly strong scheme performance, a lack of understanding of the scheme’s potential oroverly cautious target setting. Unfortunately, the majority of evaluation reports do not comment on thereasons behind schemes’ performance against their targets. The exception to this is the Building Up,Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership evaluation,which comments that the targets in relation to jobs created and safeguarded are:

‘too low for a scheme that was primarily designed to redevelop an industrial estate that already heldsome 175 jobs and to create new retail, leisure and business units in a redeveloped industrial site.’(p.22).

The marginal under-performance of outputs 1A (i), 1C and 6B can be largely attributed to the LutonDunstable scheme, which achieved 18%, 8% and 6% of its target respectively. These figures arebased on progress to March 2004, i.e. approximately halfway through the seven-year scheme.

Only one scheme (a Brighter Future for East Colchester) out-performed its target for the number ofnew businesses supported to last one year (target 32, actual 142). The Building Up, Reaching OutWatford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group achieved its target of


one supported business lasting one year. The remaining three schemes – Tilbury Port, Lowestoft intoWork and Luton Dunstable – achieved 33%, 24% and 3% of target respectively.

Table 5.13 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecastimpact, in respect of other economic outputs.

Table 5.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the EasternRegion


1A (iii) Number of construction jobs (person weeks) 63%









1J Number of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal &

social development89%


institutions to improve student performance140%



2A Number of new business start ups 28%

2B (i) New business/commercial floorspace (m2) 93%

2B (ii) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2) 37%



2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB assisted

activities60%






Again, performance against target for the ‘other economic’ outputs is a mixture of extreme over-performance, significant under-performance and some more marginal variations to targets.

The most extreme result is from the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watfordand South West Herts scheme. Here, the actual number of teachers in the target area on a placementinto business (232) far exceeds its original target of ten, indicating that this scheme was much morepopular than initially anticipated.

At the other end of the spectrum, an area of particularly poor performance was the amount of land


improved/reclaimed for open space. Only three schemes achieved or exceeded their targets in thisarea – Tilbury Port, Kirkley Regeneration Initiative and a Brighter Future for East Colchester. Theremaining four schemes with evaluation reports which recorded this output reported missed targets.Again the most significant shortfall was noted in the Luton Dunstable scheme, which came in at 15%of target. Issues regarding the performance of this scheme to target relate to the timescales and thefact that the scheme was approximately halfway through its seven-year period of operation. TheBuilding Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts PartnershipGroup failed to achieve any of its targeted 11 hectares of improved/reclaimed for open space.

Table 5.14 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecastimpact, in respect of other non-economic outputs.

Table 5.14: Actual versus forecast non-economic outputs




3A (iii) Number of local authority dwellings completed n/a





5A (i) Number benefiting from community safety initiatives 67%






























Again there is evidence of both over-performance and under-performance in terms of non-economicoutputs. The extreme result for the number of private dwellings completed can be attributed to asignificant over-performance in a Brighter Future for East Colchester. Furthermore, data issues relatedto output 5B (i) in the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey & Watford & South WestHerts Partnership Group evaluation have already been discussed in relation to Table 5.11. This islargely responsible for the regional over-performance to target in this area.

Despite every other scheme performing on or above target for the number of youth crime preventioninitiatives, the significant underperformance of the Luton Dunstable scheme has pulled down theregional performance in this area. If the target and actual outputs for this scheme are removed, theregional performance rises to 157% of the target.


Our evidence base for assessing the impact of SRB in the six regions is incomplete. We havetherefore considered whether we should ‘gross up’ the results in order to estimate the impact of RDAspending on SRB across all the schemes funded in Rounds 3 to 6. We do not believe it is helpful toattempt to gross up the impacts based on the available evidence and have decided that the bestoption at this stage is to present results and conclusions based on the evidence we currently have. Amore detailed explanation of this issue can be found in the Approach and Methodology section of thisreport (Section 4).



Given this, it was agreed with the wider RDA impact Steering Group that we would use a similarapproach to that already used in the West Midlands (by AWM) and in the North East (by ONE) toestimate net outputs. Both these meta-evaluations used the additionality coefficients derived in theSRB national evaluation to generate estimates of regional net outputs.

Details of the SRB national evaluation, and of the additionality coefficients we have used to estimatenet outputs, can be found in the Approach and Methodology section of this report (Section 4).


Net outputs

Core RDA outputs

Applying the additionality coefficients to EEDA’s gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides aview of the net core RDA outputs for the Eastern Region SRB programme, as illustrated in Table 5.15.


Table 5.15: Net core RDA outputs in the Eastern Region


EssexHaven

GatewayHertford-

shireNorfolk

Peterboro-ugh


Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 81 5 39 128 59 210 75 67 663

1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded 9 6 0 184 50 10 9 3 270

1C Number of people trained obtaining

qualifications296 152 349 1,034 231 308 1,122 1,045 4,536


surviving 52 weeks5 0 62 0 0 0 2 3 72


development (Ha)0 0 3 0 1 0 0 6 10

8E Number of community enterprise start-

ups9 0 12 5 2 2 41 5 75

Source: PwC analysis of EEDA’s SRB evaluation evidence, based on SRB national evaluation


As Table 5.15 shows, in terms of additionality, the SRB funding has led to the net creation of 663 jobs,almost a third of which have arisen from the Regenerating Peterborough scheme. Over two-thirds ofthe 270 jobs safeguarded were in the Hertfordshire area. Over 4,500 people trained through the SRBprogramme have obtained qualifications as a result. 72 new businesses supported through the SRBschemes survived for one year, of which the vast majority of these (86%) were achieved through theBrighter Future for East Colchester scheme.

The SRB scheme facilitated the improvement/reclamation of ten hectares of land for development. 75community enterprises have started up as a direct result of the SRB programme, more than half ofwhich emerged from the Working Together – Suffolk Rural scheme.


Table 5.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in theEastern Region.


Table 5.16: Net ‘other economic’ outputs in the Eastern Region


EssexHaven

GatewayHertford-

shireNorfolk

Peter-borough


Total

1A (iii) Number of construction jobs (person weeks) 550 0 3,483 586 539 0 3,568 24 8,749

1B Number of pupils benefiting from projects to improve

attainment2,615 12 0 14,509 323 395 1,829 0 19,684

1D Number of residents accessing employment through training

advice140 24 130 2,567 21 19 84 195 3,181

1E Number of training weeks 877 347 208 3,408 669 15 5,296 1,470 12,291

1F (i) Number of people trained gaining jobs 53 3 42 161 1 0 86 151 495

1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 32 5 25 41 0 0 52 139 295

1G Number entering self employment 48 1 42 23 14 0 46 24 199

1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 24 0 7 10 9 0 18 24 91

1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 46 15 0 226 0 0 30 14 331

1J Number of young people benefiting from projects to promote

personal and social development7,636 40 3,870 11,125 2,097 617 3,365 3,817 32,567

1K (i) Number of employers in collaborative projects with

educational institutions to improve student performance8 4 0 286 5 42 50 0 395

1K (ii) Number of students in collaborative projects 82 133 0 1,416 57 0 0 21 1,709

1L (i) Number of teachers in target area on placement into

business0 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 142

2A Number of new business start-ups 28 1 12 33 13 0 28 14 129

2B (i) New business/commercial floorspace (m2) 0 0 151 0 0 0 345 13,380 13,877

2B (ii) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2) 231 0 293 90 0 0 476 798 1,888



EssexHaven

GatewayHertford-

shireNorfolk

Peter-borough


Total

2C (i) New businesses supported 29 9 48 105 0 0 0 9 201

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 6 0 86 9 0 0 0 3 104

2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB-

assisted activities553 132 312 292 95 0 103 182 1,668

6A Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha) 4 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 10

6C Number of buildings back into use 2 0 0 1 4 0 47 27 80

6D (i) Roads built (km) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8



Table 5.16 indicates the level of net ‘other economic’ outputs. As can be seen from the table, there issignificant sub-regional variation, similar to that discussed in relation to the ‘other economic’ grossoutputs in Table 5.10. The Hertfordshire sub-region was particularly active in terms of employment,training and education-related outputs, while the business and environmental outputs were moreevenly spread throughout the sub-regions.


Table 5.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe Eastern Region.


Table 5.17: Net ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the Eastern Region


& LutonEssex

HavenGateway

Hertford-shire

NorfolkPeter-

boroughSuffolk

ThamesGateway

Total

3A (i) Number of private dwellings completed 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 85

3A (ii) Number of private dwellings improved 18 0 0 2 17 0 116 0 154

3A (iii) Number of local authority dwellings completed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A (iv) Number of local authority dwellings improved 16 0 0 33 141 0 0 0 190

3A (v) Number of housing association dwellings completed 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 42

3A (vi) Number of housing association dwellings improved 0 0 0 1,598 0 0 11 0 1,609

3B Number of dwellings in tenant management organisation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5A (i) Number benefiting community safety initiatives 5,364 0 270 20,010 4,723 1,738 1,784 18,902 52,790

5A (ii) Aged over 60 1,153 0 32 5,375 564 50 0 2,153 9,328

5A (iii) Females 2,474 0 73 3,030 1,065 188 0 5,349 12,180

5B (i) Number of dwellings with upgraded security 626 0 0 2,119 1,809 0 129 46 4,729

5B (ii) Number of commercial buildings with upgraded

security

52 0 0 43 5 0 11 17 129

5C Number of community safety initiatives 65 0 60 336 7 12 34 19 531

5D (i) Number of youth crime prevention initiatives 34 0 10 18 7 10 22 4 105

5D (ii) Number attending crime prevention initiatives 9,720 0 769 662 112 38 0 0 11,299

6E Number of traffic calming measures 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 6

6F Number of waste management/recycling schemes 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 74 77

7A (i) People access to new health facilities 12,652 0 4,453 4,731 3,726 641 0 0 26,203

7A (ii) People access to new sports facilities 2,905 0 4,619 32,465 441 49 0 0 40,480

7A (iii) People access to new cultural facilities 41,492 0 5,591 11,486 915 908 0 34,550 94,942



& LutonEssex

HavenGateway

Hertford-shire

NorfolkPeter-

boroughSuffolk

ThamesGateway

Total

7A (iv) Number of new health facilities 4 0 1 8 7 0 3 0 23

7A (v) Number of new sports facilities 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 61 71

7A (vi) Number of new cultural facilities 3 20 1 5 3 0 1 6 40

7B (i) Number using improved health facilities 671 0 0 1,246 862 0 0 0 2,779

7B (ii) Number using improved sports facilities 1,368 0 0 15,980 52 0 0 0 17,399

7B (iii) Number using improved cultural facilities 242 47 175 2,849 15 0 0 14,903 18,230

7B (iv) Number of health facilities improved 4 0 2 5 2 0 1 0 12

7B (v) Number of sports facilities improved 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 5

7B (vi) Number of cultural facilities improved 1 1 0 7 0 0 0 3 13

8A (i) Number of voluntary organisations supported 289 338 79 399 53 60 108 46 1,372

8A (ii) Number of community organisations supported 254 416 199 165 63 51 171 73 1,391

8C Number of individuals involved in voluntary work 431 131 2,271 1,609 342 367 237 410 5,796

8D Number of employee volunteering schemes 1 76 0 26 1 0 17 4 124

10A Number of childcare places provided 48 20 258 260 80 53 290 10 1,018



Again the patterns of sub-regional activity illustrated in Table 5.11 are mirrored in Table 5.17.Hertfordshire has been most active in terms of community safety and environmental factors, whileEssex has led in terms of a number of community and voluntary outputs.

Our review of EEDA’s SRB evaluation evidence uncovered a range of additional outputs outside of theofficial list of sixty-three outputs. One output that was commonly reported across the region was thedevelopment of community capacity building initiatives. This output was reported in 12 of the 16evaluation reports which we reviewed – over 1,500 capacity building initiatives were reported (in grossterms) as a result of the SRB programme in the East of England.

Other outputs reported include enterprise outputs, such as inward investment enquiries and advice toyoung entrepreneurs. There were also environmental outputs, such as cycle paths and energyefficiency initiatives and housing outputs, i.e. dwellings benefiting from measures intended to reducemaintenance or running costs. However, these were more sporadic and were only recorded for a smallnumber of schemes.

Outcomes and impacts

The quantitative evidence of outcomes and impacts in the evaluation reports which we reviewed wasvery limited. Qualitative outcomes identified through these reports include:

an increase in self-confidence, self-esteem and skills base for the individuals who participated inSRB projects;

the aesthetic enhancement to the physical environment;

increased access to services; and

increased awareness of policing issues, reduced fear of crime and increased feelings ofcommunity safety.

A key stakeholder that we spoke to felt that the main outcome of the SRB programme in the East ofEngland was that a large group of people in the most deprived communities had had an improvementin their economic situation. For some, this improvement meant the opportunity to move out of thecommunity or area, i.e. people who were able to improve their skills and employability had moved toan area with better employment prospects.

This migration creates issues for evaluation, in terms of the Index of Multiple Deprivation score. It alsoimpacts the overall attitude of the community as it means that, if people who have been able toimprove their situation leave the area there will be limited role models left within the area for those whoremain.

While the stakeholders that we consulted felt that the SRB programme in the East of England had hadthe biggest impact on reducing crime, improving the environment and community development, theygenerally felt that it had performed less well in areas such as health, where it was felt that theprogramme had achieved limited impact.

Similarly, the effect on employment and business-led activity was said to have been limited, due to theward-level focus of many SRB schemes. This limited impact is compounded by the fact that whenindividuals gained the skills to make themselves more employable, they often left the area in search ofbetter jobs.


Partnership development and performance

The general impression from the evaluation reports that we reviewed and the stakeholders weconsulted was that EEDA’s working arrangements were more inclusive of other regional organisationsthan their predecessors in the Government Office. According to EEDA, this was a deliberate attempt tobe more involved, right from the initial stages of a bid.

The evidence from the evaluation reports received and from our consultations with stakeholderssuggests that partnership working in the East was largely deemed to have been successful. At astrategic level, EEDA are considered to have adopted an inclusive approach, which is considered tohave helped ensure that the SRB bids coming forward from organisations within the region would beeffective, deliverable and in line with EEDA’s objectives.

Evidence from evaluations and consultations suggests that partnership working within the region isalso considered to have been effective at a delivery level, as it is believed to have led to a focus on thecore areas which the programme was aiming to address and the key projects which would deliveragainst these objectives. It was said to encourage community buy in.

However, a number of complications with achieving effective partnership development were identifiedin the evaluation evidence. For example, the original partnership models for the Building Up, ReachingOut Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group were found to beinefficient for the two distinct areas involved. This led to the development of a new, more successfulmodel of two localised groups. Similarly, partnership working in the Keystone scheme wascomplicated by its wide geographical focus, which spanned three district councils, two county councils,two town councils, two police forces and numerous Primary Care Trusts. Other difficulties wereexperienced because of the sometimes contradictory agendas of partners in SRB schemes.

Governance and management

At a regional level, an SRB Steering Group was established by EEDA to look at programme-wide andfuture activities and advise it on potential changes to the SRB programme. The overall management ofthe programme was the responsibility of the EEDA Board and its Executive.

The SRB schemes were governed by locally-accountable partnerships. These partnerships werecomposed of representatives from the community, local businesses and the local authority(ies) andwere generally considered to be inclusive. The SRB programme was considered to be successfulwithin the East of England in terms of distributing national funding at a local level.

There was an issue with the EEDA Board in Round 6, in that the Board were so keen to ensure thesuccess of the partnerships which got through to the later Rounds that they top-sliced SRB funding todistribute on that basis, leaving less for other schemes. The thinking behind this was that there wouldbe an SRB Round 7 and that by building the capacity of these partnerships, they would then be in aposition to spend more money in Round 7. In effect, the result was the dilution of the programme’simpact, as lots of partnerships got small amounts of money, requiring a lot of management butproducing less of an impact.

Community engagement

Our evaluation evidence suggests that there was effective community engagement whilst the SRBprogramme was running, with most partnerships performing well in terms of community consultations,involvement in programme delivery and representation at board level.

However, a small number of schemes struggled to achieve significant community engagement, in


particular the Waltham Cross Economic Regeneration, Regenerating Peterborough and Suffolk MarketTowns schemes, as well as some projects within the Vange New Skills scheme. A number of reasonsfor this were given, including a lack of representation by core partners at board meetings, mistrust ofthe some partner organisations, lack of community leadership, lack of willing volunteers and a lack ofincentive for capacity-building activities.

Local communities were sometimes discouraged from becoming involved because of their negativeperception of formal structures. A particular issue faced by small villages was the difficultly in findingpeople willing to become active in their community.

Strategic impact

Strategic leadership and catalyst

From EEDA’s perspective the SRB programme has demonstrated strategic leadership by providing awider demonstration of a good partnership working and the benefits of joining up spend and activity.This model is now more common, both within EEDA and at a national level.

EEDA used the SRB programme as a test-bed for developing and learning from new leadershipapproaches such as work on social capital, which was an emerging agenda in 2003.

Strategic influence

The key strategic influence impacts generated through the Luton Dunstable SRB scheme include thealignment with Objective 2 funding and the lessons learnt form the work around neighbourhoodgovernance and developing neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood governance, planning andengagement is now an important policy direction within central government’s “Strong and ProsperousCommunities” agenda for local government and local communities. The idea of running programmesof work, rather than individual projects, is an approach which Luton Borough Council has adopted insubsequent work with EEDA on integrated development programmes.

Leverage

Achieving the public match funding, in terms of the £8 million of Objective 2 funding, was said to havebeen a key strategic impact generated through the Keystone SRB programme. The Objective 2funding supported a number of capital builds, such as a state of the art conferencing and cateringfacility which included ERDF, SRB and later Investing in Communities funding, therefore helping tocreate cohesive packages of support.

Table 5.18 shows the actual and leveraged funding for the seven schemes for which this informationwas available (no leverage information was available for any Round 5 schemes). The informationavailable shows that £12.1 million of actual SRB spend leveraged £43.5 million of additional funding,from private (£31.1 million) and public sector sources (£12.4 million. Every £1 of SRB spend leveredan additional £3.58.

Table 5.18: Leverage in the Eastern Region (£ million)

SRB Round SRB spend Private sector funding Public sector funding Leverage ratio

Round 3 8.5 30.1 5.7 £1 : £4.21

Round 4 2.1 0.1 5.4 £1 : £2.63

Round 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Round 6 1.5 0.9 1.3 £1 : £1.43

Total 12.1 31.1 12.4 £1 : £3.58


Source: EEDA evaluation evidence

Synergy

The community resource centre developed through the Cobholm and Lichfield SRB scheme was builton what was previously a derelict site, which had been an eyesore at the gateway to the town. Thedevelopment of the resource centre greatly improved the area and was followed by a number of othercapital builds in the surrounding area by national retail chains.

Engagement

The SRB programme had a significant impact on community engagement and partnership networkswithin the region. There was also evidence of voluntary sector engagement. However, EEDAexperienced difficulties in engaging the private sector, except where there was private sector interestin a particular project, such as the regeneration projects undertaken by predominantly business-basedpartnerships around the technical colleges.

The evaluation evidence suggests that the private sector sometimes viewed SRB as an overlybureaucratic public sector programme, which resulted in mixed private sector engagement. This lackof engagement is similar to past experience and indeed, EEDA’s successor scheme to SRB (Investingin Communities) has experienced similar difficulties in relation to private sector engagement.

Legacy/sustainability

Overall, the evaluation evidence suggests that the SRB programme was partially successful inaffecting mainstream delivery in the East of England. EEDA do not consider this to be a failure in theprogramme, but something that was always going to be difficult to achieve.

There has been some notable subsequent investment from mainstream organisations. A project calledTAVO (Thetford Area Voluntary Organisations), which aimed to provide training to the local voluntarysector, has received SRB and European funding and has now received National Lottery funding. Workon migrants was funded by SRB, Home Office, Connecting Communities (CLG), Citizens’ AdviceBureaux and Department of Work and Pensions. The Oxmoor neighbourhood management schemenow receives funding from Luminous, the registered social landlord.

In the Cobholm and Lichfield ward, the remodelled play area is now maintained by Great YarmouthBorough Council and the construction skills group built a disability garden at a local college, which isbeing maintained by the college. All of the key projects in the Suffolk Prosper scheme weremainstreamed.

Value for money

It would usually be standard practice to assess the value for money of the outputs generated by anevaluated programme, and to assess the contribution of economic outputs to gross value added(GVA). We have decided not to perform these calculations in the meta-evaluation, as we believe thediverse range of outputs in this programme and the difficulties in disaggregating economic and non-economic data make such a calculation inappropriate. More detail on this can be found in Section 4,which explains the approach and methodology used in this meta-evaluation.


Overall strengths and weaknesses

From the evidence we reviewed, the key strengths of the SRB programme in the East of England werethe level of community engagement, efficient project management systems, effective partnershipworking, innovative delivery approaches, close links to other projects (i.e. URBAN II and Objective 2)and the development of individuals’ skills and capabilities. According to the evaluation evidence andanecdotal evidence from key stakeholders, this has led to increased self-esteem within communities.

On the negative side, the narrow geographical focus appears to have been an inhibiting factor forEEDA, as the SRB programme in the East of England was based on relatively small areas. This wasexacerbated by EEDA’s small proportion of overall funding relative to the other regions, which limitedthe extent to which EEDA could target the funding and resulted in a focus on smaller areas ofdeprivation.

The opportunities to impact on activities within those areas was necessarily limited by the physical orgeographical characteristics of those wards, e.g. a heavily residential ward with no land free forbusiness development could not undertake any business development activities. Subsequentregeneration programmes within EEDA looked for a broader model. For example, instead of taking award-level approach, the IiC programme comprised three strands of activity – a regional IiCprogramme, a sub-regional IiC programme (using the sub-regions outlined in this section) and a ruralprogramme.

Conclusions

This meta-evaluation of EEDA’s SRB activity in Rounds 3 to 6 is based on the evaluation evidencereceived for 16 out of EEDA’s 43 SRB schemes, accounting for £46.2m of SRB expenditure, or 57.4%of the forecast £80.5m. Due to the lack of consideration of additionality in these reports, gross to netadjustments have been based on the national SRB evaluation.

In terms of core outputs, these 16 SRB schemes led to the net creation of 663 jobs, safeguarding afurther 270. 4,536 people trained through these schemes obtained qualifications. 72 businessessupported through the schemes survived 52 weeks. Ten hectares of land were improved or reclaimedfor development. 75 community enterprises were established.

On the whole, the scheme was believed by evaluators to have been effective in helping people in themost deprived communities to improve their outcomes. The SRB programme in the East of Englandwas considered by stakeholders to be most successful in terms of reducing crime, improving theenvironment and promoting community development.


6 The impact of SRB in London

Introduction

This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the Londonregion. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this report andincludes:

background information on the London region;





an estimate of net outputs based on an assessment of additionality;



Overview of the London region

The administrative area of Greater London was created in 1965 and covers the City of London and 32London boroughs. Its area also forms the London region of England and the London EuropeanParliament constituency.

The Greater London region has by far the highest GDP per capita in the United Kingdom. It covers1.579 km² (609 square miles) and had a 2006 mid-year estimated population of 7,512,400,approximately 12% of the UK total. It is bounded by the Home Counties of Essex and Hertfordshire inthe East of England region and by Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Kent in South EastEngland.

London has a thriving economy and is one of the most important business cities in the world, with agross value added (GVA) per head in 2007 that was 53% above the national average. But it also facessignificant challenges, with issues such as immigration, unemployment and the environment allregularly in the spotlight. Almost one third of Londoners are from non-white ethnic groups. Theresident labour force of 3.8 million people is supplemented by commuters – around a fifth of London's4.6 million jobs are filled by people who live outside the capital. However, London has the highestunemployment rate in the UK as a whole, and the three highest unemployment rates at local authoritylevel.

The average weekly household income (from all sources) in London in 2007 was £304 per person,which is over 20% higher than the national average. However, two out of five children in London live inlow-income households. London’s key industry sectors include financial services, construction, thecreative industries, energy, environmental technologies, healthcare, ICT, leisure and entertainment,life sciences, professional services and retail.


As outlined in Table 3.3, Index of Multiple Deprivation Data from 2004 indicates that 20.5% of the8,120 most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs)

21in England are in the London region. This makes

London the second most deprived region in England, on this measurement, behind the North West.

This figure masks significant sub-regional variations, as outlined in Table 6.1. For example, EastLondon contains 27% of the total sub-regions in London, but 38% of London’s sub-regions which arein the bottom 25% of the national IMD rankings. In contrast, 18% of London’s SOAs are in SouthLondon, but only 4% of the most deprived SOAs are located in this sub-region.

Table 6.1: SRB deprivation figures for sub-regions within LDA

Sub-region Number of SOAs in thesub-region in bottom

IMD quartile nationally

% of SOAs in thesub-region as a

whole

% of regional total inlowest IMD quartile

nationally

North 249 14% 15%

East 638 27% 38%

South 70 18% 4%

West 183 19% 11%

Central 523 21% 31%

Total 1,663 100% 100%


Regional context

Table 6.2 provides an overview of the SRB programme in the region, outlining the number andproportion of schemes that took place in each SRB Round and providing a comparison with thenational picture.

Table 6.2: Number of SRB schemes in the London Region

SRB Round Number of SRB schemes in theregion (% of total schemes in the

region)

Number of SRB schemesnationally (% of total schemes

nationally)

Round 1 49 (20.1%) 201 (19.6%)

Round 2 41 (16.8%) 172 (16.7%)

Round 3 48 (19.7%) 182 (17.7%)

Round 4 22 (9.0%) 121 (11.8%)

Round 5 38 (15.6%) 163 (15.9%)

Round 6 46 (18.9%) 189 (18.4%)

Overall Total 244 (100%) 1028 (100.0%)

Rounds 3-6 Total 154 (63.1%) 655 (63.7%)

Source: CLG

21 See 5 for more detail on Super Output Areas


Across the six Rounds of SRB, 244 schemes were funded in London, about 24% of the national totalof 1,028 schemes. More specifically, for Rounds 3 to 6 with which this report is concerned 154schemes were funded, which is also 24% of the national total. The allocation of schemes betweenRounds generally mirrored the national picture and was consistent across most Rounds, apart fromRound 4.

SRB expenditure



SRB Round SRB Expenditure (£m) % of region’s totalSRB expenditure


Round 1 316.2 21% 28%

Round 2 252.3 16% 22%

Round 3 287.3 19% 31%

Round 4 73.1 5% 23%

Round 5 319.8 21% 31%

Round 6 300.0 19% 24%

Overall total 1548.6 100% 27%

Rounds 3-6 total 980.1 63% 28%

Source: CLG

London received £1,549 million of SRB funding over the six Rounds, of which £980 million was spentduring Rounds 3 to 6 of the programme. Round 5 was the largest Round (£320 million) and Round 4was the smallest Round (£73 million). Overall, London received 27% of national SRB funding.

Table 6.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of LDA’s budgeted expenditure per SRB Round.

Table 6.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round, per sub-region (£m)

Sub-region Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Totals % of Total

North 13.3 10.6 34.0 9.5 67.4 7%

East 137.4 28.8 98.8 132.6 397.5 41%

South 22.0 0.0 3.9 6.2 32.1 3%

West 39.4 0.00 30.9 38.5 108.8 11%

Central 53.5 26.1 109.6 81.3 270.5 28%

Pan-London 21.7 7.5 42.6 32.0 103.8 11%

Total 287.3 73.1 319.8 300.0 980.1 100%

Source: York Consulting analysis of CLG data

The London region received a total of £980 million in SRB funding from Rounds 3 to 6. In keeping withthe deprivation levels highlighted in Table 6.1, East London received the most funding across the four


Rounds (£398 million), followed by Central London. South London received the least amount offunding (£32 million). Pan-London initiatives accounted for just over £100 million of SRB funding.

Funding was not consistent across the four Rounds. Round 5 was the largest Round at £320 millionand Round 4 was the smallest at only £73 million. The low funding levels for Round 4 were consistentwith the picture for SRB funding nationally.

Table 6.5 outlines actual SRB expenditure by LDA between 2002/03 and 2006/07, which is the‘relevant expenditure’ period in the overall RDA impact evaluation.


Year SRB expenditure (£m)

2002/03 189.1

2003/04 132.2

2004/05 82.6

2005/06 72.4

2006/07 31.4

Total 507.8

Source: LDA

LDA’s total relevant expenditure for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is £1,106million. This means that SRB accounts for 46% of LDA’s expenditure in the overall RDA impactevaluation.

The figures in Table 6.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that wehave evaluated, as some of the spend in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 to2006/07. However, all the Rounds 3 to 6 outputs are included in the meta-evaluation, which meansthat care is needed when comparing inputs with outputs.

Evidence gathering

Evaluation evidence

The meta-evaluation is a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations and other data sources forSRB schemes. We are therefore heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of evaluation evidencewe have received from the RDA. The LDA were helpful in sourcing reports, although as Table 6.6shows, evidence was not available for all SRB schemes. The quality of SRB reports received washighly variable, with some reports providing a comprehensive review of scheme performance andothers not even reviewing the finance and output performance for the scheme.




SRBRound

Total numberof SRB

schemes





expenditurefor that Round

Amount ofbudgeted

expenditurefor that Round

(£m)

Round 3 48 18 38% 71% 203.3

Round 4 22 11 50% 74% 53.7

Round 5 38 23 61% 77% 245.5

Round 6 46 32 70% 86% 257.9

Total 154 84 55% 78% 760.4

Source: York Consulting. Expenditure in this table refers to budgeted SRB expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from CLG

data.

Between Rounds 3 and 6, SRB money funded 154 discrete SRB schemes. In total we received reportsfor 100 schemes, but for 16 of these schemes the evaluation reports did not contain the requiredinformation, i.e. outputs and financial information and were not included in the quantitative analysis ofthe London SRB programme. The remaining 84 reports received (or 55% of the total) contained therequired financial and output information and covered £760 million, or 78% of the total SRB spend forthe London programme.



SRBRound

Numberof

schemesunder£1m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Number ofschemes

£1m - £3m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Number ofschemes

above £3m

Number ofschemes

withevaluations

received

Round 3 11 1 13 3 24 17

Round 4 4 1 7 4 11 8

Round 5 7 1 8 5 23 21

Round 6 11 4 8 9 27 26

Total 33 7 36 21 85 72

Source: York Consulting. Expenditure categories relate to SRB money only.

The majority of schemes in London (55%) received more than £3 million of SRB funding.Commensurate with this, the large majority (72%) of reports received were for schemes over £3million. We only received seven evaluation reports with usable evidence for schemes under £1 million– this despite there being 33 such schemes funded. For mid-size schemes (between £1 million and £3million) we received reports for only 21 schemes. This might suggest that smaller schemes were morereluctant to undertake final evaluations, despite this being a condition of SRB funding.

The LDA provided York Consulting with a database of SRB spending and outputs from their ProjectManagement System (PMS). The decision was taken not to use this evidence for two reasons. Firstly,there were discrepancies between evaluation reports and the information from the PMS system, whichmeant we could not be wholly sure about the consistency of the PMS information. Further, the LDA


had provided evaluation report evidence for over 70% of their SRB spend, which was considered to bea sufficient level of coverage through evaluation evidence to provide information about the impact ofSRB in the region.

We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individualevaluations can tell us about expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 6.8 provides an overview ofwhat we have found.


SRB Round Total number ofevaluations

received

Evaluations withactual and budgetedexpenditure included

Evaluationswith gross

outputsincluded

Evaluationswith net outputs

included

Round 3 21 17 18 0

Round 4 13 10 11 0

Round 5 27 22 21 3

Round 6 39 28 34 1

Total 100 77 84 4

Source: York Consulting

Of the 100 reports received by York Consulting, 77 contained financial information and 84 reportscontained information on gross outputs. So as to include the information for those schemes for whichoutput but financial data was not available, the assumption is made that schemes spent all of the CLGfunding made available to them.

Only four evaluation reports that we received – Silwood SRB, Connecting Communities, GettingLondon Working and Delivering Manufacturing in Thames Gateway South – made any attempt toassess additionality and estimate the net outputs of the schemes. Those schemes that did attempt totranslate gross outputs into net outputs used either metrics based on conversations with SRB staff orderived from the national evaluation.

It is hard to know exactly why so few evaluations attempted to assess net outputs. However, the mostlikely reason is that no explicit requirement to evaluate net impacts existed, so only a few SRBschemes are likely to have actually requested such information from evaluation consultants. Theremay also have been challenges in gathering, understanding and interpreting data, and in the limitedbudgets that were often available for evaluation.

The limited amount of locally-derived information on additionality means that we will need to apply theadditionality data generated by the National SRB Evaluation to LDA’s gross SRB outputs, in order toestimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, thisapproach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the bestoption available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4,which explains the meta-evaluation’s approach and methodology.



Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with key strategicstakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitativeinformation about the nature and impact of SRB in the region – in effect, to understand some of thenuances that may not be apparent from reading evaluation reports.

We spoke to a mixture of people, both within LDA and amongst external partners, to try to understandmore about LDA’s overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to the delivery ofindividual projects and schemes. Who we spoke to was entirely at the discretion of the RDA – thestakeholders were nominated by the RDA, as the people they believed would be the most helpful to usin this task. A full list of stakeholder consultees can be found at Appendix C.

The stakeholder consultations have proved very beneficial in augmenting the evaluation evidence wehave reviewed.

Gross outputs


This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRBoutputs across the board. However, we have also been mindful of the need to capture a range ofqualitative information as well. To this end, the recording template contained a range of qualitativefields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; communityengagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths andweaknesses.


Core RDA outputs


Table 6.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the LondonRegion. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted SRBexpenditure of £760 million, or 78% of the budgeted £973 million SRB spend.


Table 6.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the London Region

Output category Central East North South WestPan-

London Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 2,592 6,465 2,440 2,167 3,797 11,494 28,953

1A (ii) Number of jobs

safeguarded 2,423 7,532 1,220 1,094 32 2,727 15,028

1C Number of people trained

obtaining qualifications 10,460 22,396 7,887 6,357 7,956 6,131 61,187

2C (ii) New businesses

supported surviving 52 weeks 179 314 - 99 256 2,750 3,598


development (Ha) 12 52 0 13 1 - 78

8E Number of community

enterprise start-ups 83 93 8 5 - 18 207

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on evaluation evidence provided by LDA

The London SRB programme delivered almost 29,000 gross new jobs for the region. Over 11,000 or38% of these jobs were delivered by a single scheme – the pan-London New Business Creationscheme otherwise known as “Up and Running”. Other significant schemes included Crystal PalaceSRB, which delivered 1,885 jobs, and the Southall SRB scheme “Unlocking Potential.” The high levelsof job creation generated by the Crystal Palace scheme mean the figures for the southern sub-regionare much higher than might be expected, given the levels of SRB-funded schemes in the south.

Over 15,000 jobs were safeguarded as a result of the London SRB programme, of which fifty percentof safeguarded jobs were in the Eastern sub-region. Significant schemes in the East included“Delivering Manufacturing in the Thames Gateway”, which safeguarded over 3,000 jobs, and the “Timefor Greenwich” scheme, which secured 1,633 jobs. Notably, very few jobs were secured by SRBschemes in West London – only 32 in total.

The London SRB programme delivered training programmes for over 61,000 people which led totrainees obtaining a qualification. East London was again a major contributor, with schemes such as“Time for Greenwich” and “Newham A2E” generating high numbers of trainees.

Over 3,500 new businesses that survived more than 52 weeks were supported by SRB schemes.Over three quarters (76%) of this output was delivered by one scheme – the pan-London “NewBusiness Creation Scheme.” It is worth noting that the evaluation report for this scheme casts somedoubt on the monitoring systems put in place for this scheme and the scheme had to recruitconsultants part way through the scheme to try and make sense of the monitoring and evaluation datasystems.

Seventy-eight hectares of land were improved or reclaimed for development. Nearly two-thirds of thistook place in East London and was delivered by three schemes – “Investing in Belvedere”,“Engineering a Competitive Future at the Heart of the Thames Gateway” and “ManufacturingInvestment and Workforce Development in Barking & Dagenham, Havering and Thurrock”.Noticeably, no land improvement or reclamation schemes were delivered by pan-London schemes,perhaps reflecting the local/sub-regional nature of land development projects.

Finally, the London SRB programme delivered over 200 community enterprise start-ups. Sixty one ofthese were delivered by the “Connecting Communities” programme in central London. Over 85% ofcommunity enterprise start-ups were delivered in either East or Central London.



Of the remaining fifty-seven outputs, we have categorised twenty-three as ‘other economic’ outputs –outputs that have a distinct economic focus to them, but which are not included in the RDA’s coreoutputs.

Table 6.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe London Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgetedSRB expenditure of £760 million, or 78% of the budgeted £973 million SRB spend.

Table 6.10: Gross ‘other economic’ outputs in the London Region


LondonTotal

1A (iii) Number of construction

jobs (person weeks)46,537 299,764 2,487 21,564 95,968 1,930 468,251

1B Number of pupils benefiting

from projects to improve

attainment

123,813 124,439 162,279 52,080 17,272 3,323 483,206

1D Number of residents

accessing employment through

training advice

3,540 9,095 836 2,664 5,670 3,106 24,910

1E Number of training weeks 56,172 133,872 38,394 39,010 2,387 32,352 302,187

1F (i) Number of people trained

gaining jobs1,409 5,188 744 696 18 3,705 11,760

1F (ii) Who were formerly

unemployed784 2,721 118 459 1,019 1,985 7,086

1G Number entering self

employment137 933 39 66 4 19 1,198

1G (ii) Who were formerly

unemployed45 401 9 51 - - 506

1I (i) Number from

disadvantaged groups targeted

who gain job

5,442 1,725 1,375 298 - 814 9,654

1J Number of young people

benefiting from projects to

promote personal and social

development

198,910 194,954 75,047 68,845 12,834 17,073 567,663

1K (i) Number of employers in

collaborative projects with

educational institutions to

improve student performance

1,925 1,861 1,039 234 192 97 5,348



LondonTotal

1K (ii) Number of students in

collaborative projects 9,963 23,913 14,739 274 0 104 48,993

1L (i) Number of teachers in

target area on placement into

business345 145 130 0 0 557 1,177

2A Number of new business

start-ups580 1,291 341 233 132 5,539 8,116

2B (i) Business/commercial

floorspace improved (m2) 63,191 135,251 76,318 3,467 100 - 278,327

2B (ii) New business /

commercial floorspace (m2) 14,836 120,370 7,084 48,051 13,105 - 203,446

2C (i) New businesses supported272 1,202 22 28 436 4,229 6,189

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 179 314 - 99 256 2,750 3,598

2D Number of businesses

receiving advice as a result of

SRB-assisted activities34,219 11,028 216 3,548 3,114 13,940 66,065

6A Land improved/reclaimed for

open space (Ha)53 190 101 29 44 0 418

6C Number of buildings back into

use65 753 1 350 2 17 1,188

6D (i) Roads built (km) 460 21 3 - - - 484

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 492 28 - 17 1 - 538

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on LDA evaluation evidence

The London SRB programme has delivered a wide range of other gross economic outputs. Some ofthe highlights include:

Over 460,000 person weeks of construction jobs created – significant contributors to this targetincluded the “Time for Greenwich” scheme, the “Tomorrow’s City” scheme in Stratford and the“Unlocking Potential” scheme in Southall. Nearly two-thirds of all construction jobs were created inEast London SRB schemes;

Over 300,000 training weeks delivered and over 11,000 people receiving training support getting ajob. Significant contributors included “Tomorrow’s City” and the ”Newham A2E” schemes, whichdelivered over 32,000 and 27,000 training weeks respectively and also trained over 1,200 and 900people, respectively, who went on to get jobs;

Over 8,000 businesses started up across London, the majority of which (68%) were delivered bythe pan-London “New Business Creation” SRB scheme;

Across London, 278,000m2of business floorspace was improved and 203,000m

2of new business

floorspace was created. Major contributors to business floorspace improvements included “NewOpportunities in Walthamstow” in north London and the “New Life for Paddington” scheme inCentral London. For new business floorspace, the “Manufacturing in Thames Gateway” in East


London and Crystal Palace SRB schemes in South London were the two single biggestcontributors, generating over 118,000 m

2between them.



Table 6.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemesin the London Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account forbudgeted SRB expenditure of £760 million, or 78% of the budgeted £973 million SRB spend.

Table 6.11: Gross ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the London Region

Output categoryCentral East North South West

Pan-London Total

3A (i) Number of private

dwellings completed 560 197 - - 252 1,009

3A (ii) Number of private

dwellings improved 665 621 - - 73 - 1,359


dwellings completed - - - - - - 0


dwellings improved 3,180 6,958 1 - 843 - 10,982


association dwellings completed 46 939 24 - - - 1,009


association dwellings improved 109 525 - 9 - - 643


management organisation 404 0 - 170 - - 574


community safety initiatives 5,458,298 339,511 91,433 10,972 21,115 - 5,921,329

5A (ii) Aged over 60 17,213 25,016 16,380 1,452 10 - 60,071

5A (iii) Females 62,516 119,610 53 4,364 452 - 186,995


upgraded security 4,957 5,674 7,163 454 1,550 - 19,798


buildings with upgraded security 140 457 271 212 - 171 1,251


initiatives 871 837 207 48 88 - 2,050

5D (i) Number of youth crime

prevention initiatives 514 1,136 88 141 106 14 1,999


prevention initiatives 17,324 49,623 3,567 4,067 3,052 11,862 89,495


measures 36 36 - 25 - - 97

6F Number of waste 58 147 15 - - 40 260



Pan-London Total

management / recycling

schemes

7A (i) People access to new

health facilities 27,870 188,874 13,642 55,806 3,951 - 290,143

7A (ii) People access to new

sports facilities 59,579 187,505 8,080 193,858 907 - 449,929


cultural facilities 241,430 626,486 8,380 17,052 4,258 - 897,606


facilities 38 98 1 8 63 - 208


facilities 19 21 1 5 3 - 49


facilities 110 29 12 13 2 1 167


health facilities 22,807 43,575 200 3,096 - - 69,678


sports facilities 7,660 41,491 135 18,835 731 - 68,852


cultural facilities 100,076 86,946 - 86,563 229 - 273,814


improved 97 261 2 36 29 - 425


improved 84 167 - 34 2 - 287

7B (vi) Number of cultural

facilities improved 285 68 8 8 - - 369


organisations supported 9,583 3,577 285 784 104 374 14,707


organisations supported 4,107 2,755 725 322 4,404 292 12,605

8C Number of individuals

involved in voluntary work 20,091 19,478 1,639 1,066 849 1,374 44,497


volunteering schemes 236 1,549 3 - 70 1,858


provided 3,767 4,304 12,658 523 - 24 21,276

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on CLG data and LDA evaluation evidence

Again, as with the economic outputs in Table 6.10, we describe a number of the more prominentoutput performances:

Some SRB schemes sought to address issues of poor quality or a lack of housing. Just over 1,000private dwellings were completed and 1,359 private dwellings were improved. The “WandsworthPartnership” scheme in Central London completed 560 new private dwellings and the “All Changeat Camden Central” scheme improved 359 dwellings.


Community safety initiatives were common across all sub-regions. Notably, the Central sub-regiondelivered over 5.5 million people benefiting from community safety initiatives. This number shouldperhaps be read with some caution – the “Cross River Partnership” programme report suggested itdelivered 4.5 million such outputs, a figure that seems incongruously high.

High numbers of people benefited from new health, sports and cultural facilities across all sub-regions. In particular, 626,000 people in East London benefited from access to new culturalfacilities, with the “Leaside Communities in Business” scheme delivering nearly 200,000 suchoutputs, for example. Elsewhere, in South London 193,858 people benefited from access to newsports facilities, with the Crystal Palace SRB scheme delivering 192,000 of these outputs.

Other notable outputs include over 44,000 taking part in volunteering schemes (the majority ofwhich were in East and Central London), over 21,000 childcare places created and 1,858employee volunteering schemes developed.


Table 6.12 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecastimpact, in respect of core RDA outputs.

Table 6.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the London Region








Source: PwC/York analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from LDA

The SRB programme for London exceeded targets against two output categories in the RDA outputssection – jobs safeguarded (125%) and the number of people trained obtaining qualifications (108%).A stand-out performer against the jobs safeguarded target was the pan-London “Centre for Excellencefor Manufacturing” scheme, which had a target of 1,100 jobs safeguarded and delivered over 2,600safeguarded jobs. No explanation for this over-performance is given in the scheme’s evaluation.

Against the other four categories the programme failed to meet its output targets. In particular, theprogramme missed the target to improve or reclaim land for development – only 70% of the target wasachieved. This was due in large part to three schemes – “Take Another Look at Abbey Wood andThamesmead”; Crystal Palace SRB and “Time for Greenwich” – failing to deliver 56 hectares ofimproved or reclaimed land.

The large majority of other schemes exceeded or delivered close to their 2C (ii) targets. The regionalperformance figure of 77% is distorted by the poor performance of the “London New BusinessCreation” Scheme, which failed to deliver 822 supported businesses that survived 52 weeks.

The poor performance against 8E was, again, distorted by the poor performance of a single scheme.Leaside Communities in Business was expected to deliver 98 community enterprise start-ups but onlyachieved 12.

Table 6.13 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast


impact, in respect of other economic outputs.

Table 6.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the LondonRegion












social development 216%


institutions to improve student performance 177%









activities 178%





Source: PwC/York analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from LDA

For the “other” economic targets delivered by SRB schemes, outputs were exceeded in thirteencategories and not met for ten output categories. Notably, for five categories, outputs were exceededby more than 50%. Also, for some output categories, e.g. pupils benefiting from improved attainment,there is potential for significant latitude in interpretation. One SRB scheme set out to deliver around34,000 pupils benefiting from improved attainment and in reality the scheme achieved 146,000 pupils.It is conceivable that academic results in the borough’s schools have improved over the lifetime of thescheme (in keeping with national trends) and the SRB scheme has taken some of the credit for thisimprovement by quoting a figure of 146,000. Proving the SRB scheme delivered such a markedincrease in student performance is nigh on impossible and also highly unlikely.


For those output categories where targets were missed, the performance against the majority of outputtargets fell within what might be considered reasonable bounds (within 20%). Ex-ante target settingfor complicated programmes is not an exact science and there will often be output targets againstwhich schemes under-deliver. However, the broad programme-level performance does masksignificant variation at the level of the scheme. For example, the number of people trained getting a jobthe SRB programme achieved 93% of its outputs. However, within this the Leaside Communities inBusiness scheme missed its target by 45% and the “Tomorrow’s City” scheme exceeded its target by13%.

The most notable underachievement is against the roads improved category – the London programmeonly delivered 47% of the expected target. However, it should be noted that road improvements are atthe outer reaches of SRB schemes’ influence and are not a “core” measure against which manyschemes seek to deliver.








































Source: PwC/York analysis, based on SRB evaluation evidence received from LDA

Against 24 of the 33 output categories, the London SRB programme achieved or exceeded its targets.For nine categories the programme delivered less than was expected of it.

The number of waste management schemes developed was 515% of the target and the number ofvoluntary organisations supported stood at 213% of the target. Indeed, the last number highlights theproblem of verifying SRB outputs. One scheme alone suggested it supported over 2,150 voluntaryorganisations as well as delivering outputs against most of the other SRB categories. Intuitively, thisfigure feels very high – the administrative burden of recording the details of over 2,150 organisationswould be taxing enough – but there is no real recourse to verifying this information from finalevaluation reports.

In terms of under-achievement, the lowest figure is for People accessing cultural facilities – only 16%.This appears to be the result of a single scheme vastly over-estimating what was achievable – the“Crystal Palace SRB” scheme set a target of over 4.4 million people accessing new cultural facilities,which equates to roughly half the population of London. Performance against the number of HousingAssociation dwellings improved was poor – only 29% of target. This number was driven largely by thefailure of two schemes to deliver the expected levels of improved dwellings – “All change at CamdenCentral” managed only 24% of its target and the “Finsbury Park SRB scheme” achieved 0% of itstarget.








Net outputs

Core RDA outputs

Applying the additionality coefficients to LDA’s gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides aview of the net core RDA outputs for the London Region SRB programme, as illustrated in Table 6.15.

Table 6.15: Net core RDA outputs in the London Region


Pan-London Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 1,063 2,651 1,000 888 1,557 4,712 11,871


safeguarded 1,042 3,239 525 470 14 1,173 6,462


obtaining qualifications 5,857 12,542 4,417 3,560 4,455 3,433 34,265


supported surviving 52 weeks 79 138 - 44 113 1,210 1,583


development (Ha) 6 25 0 6 0 - 38


enterprise start-ups 65 73 6 4 - 14 161

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on CLG/University of Cambridge data and LDA evaluation evidence

Applying the gross to net measures from the national RDA evaluation nets off the number of outputsthat would have been delivered anyway, without SRB funding. With these revisions the number ofjobs created is reduced to 11,871, for example. However, because the same metric was appliedequally across the sub-regions, the proportions of outputs delivered by the sub-regions do not changefrom gross to net. So, in the gross calculations the Northern sub-region provided 8% of the total grossjobs created. As Table 6.15 shows, this 8% figure remains the same for the net outputs achieved bythe London SRB scheme.


Table 6.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in theLondon Region.


Table 6.16: Net ‘other economic’ outputs in the London Region


Pan-London Total


jobs (person weeks) 19,546 125,901 1,045 9,057 40,307 811 196,665



attainment 65,621 65,952 86,008 27,602 9,154 1,761 256,099



training advice 2,195 5,639 518 1,652 3,515 1,926 15,444

1E Number of training weeks 20,222 48,194 13,822 14,044 859 11,647 108,787


gaining jobs 705 2,594 372 348 9 1,853 5,880


unemployed 376 1,306 57 220 489 953 3,401


employment 78 532 22 38 2 11 683


unemployed 25 225 5 29 - - 283

1I (i) Number from


who gain job 3,319 1,052 839 182 - 497 5,889




development 93,487 91,628 35,272 32,357 6,032 8,024 266,801




improve student performance 1,155 1,117 623 140 115 58 3,209


collaborative projects 4,882 11,717 7,222 134 0 51 24,007



business 210 88 79 0 0 340 718


start-ups 244 542 143 98 55 2,326 3,409


floorspace improved (m2) 22,749 48,690 27,474 1,248 36 - 100,198

2B (ii) New business/commercial

floorspace (m2) 6,676 54,167 3,188 21,623 5,897 - 91,551

2C (i) New businesses

supported 120 529 10 12 192 1,861 2,723

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 82 144 - 46 118 1,265 1,655

2D Number of businesses 14,714 4,742 93 1,526 1,339 5,994 28,408



Pan-London Total


SRB-assisted activities


open space (Ha) 41 145 77 22 33 0 318

6C Number of buildings back

into use 34 399 1 186 1 9 630

6D (i) Roads built (km) 244 11 2 - - - 256

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 369 21 - 13 1 - 404


As per Table 6.15, applying the gross to net metrics to the various output categories reduces thelevels of “claimable” outputs for all categories. However, again, because the same metrics are appliedequally across all the sub-regions there is no change in the relative proportions of outputs the differentsub-regions contribute to overall programme performance.


Table 6.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe London Region.

Table 6.17: Net ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the London Region


Pan-London Total


dwellings completed 235 83 - - 106 - 424


dwellings improved 313 292 - - 34 - 639

3A (iii) Number of local

authority dwellings completed - - - - - - -

3A (iv) Number of local

authority dwellings improved 1,590 3,479 1 - 422 - 5,491


association dwellings

completed 21 423 11 - - - 454


association dwellings improved 55 263 - 5 - - 322

3B Number of dwellings in

tenant management

organisation 263 0 - 111 - - 373


community safety initiatives 2,838,315 176,546 47,545 5,705 10,980 - 3,079,091

5A (ii) Aged over 60 8,434 12,258 8,026 711 5 - 29,435

5A (iii) Females 29,383 56,217 25 2,051 212 - 87,888


upgraded security 2,429 2,780 3,510 222 760 - 9,701



Pan-London Total


buildings with upgraded

security 78 256 152 119 - 96 701

5C Number of community

safety initiatives 444 427 106 24 45 - 1,046


prevention initiatives 278 613 48 76 57 8 1,079


prevention initiatives 12,127 34,736 2,497 2,847 2,136 8,303 62,647


measures 17 17 - 12 - - 46

6F Number of waste

management/recycling

schemes 44 112 11 - 30 198


health facilities 17,558 118,991 8,594 35,158 2,489 - 182,790


sports facilities 36,343 114,378 4,929 118,253 553 - 274,457


cultural facilities 159,344 413,481 5,531 11,254 2,810 - 592,420


facilities 25 64 1 5 41 - 135


facilities 12 13 1 3 2 - 30


facilities 75 20 8 9 1 1 114


health facilities 14,368 27,452 126 1,950 - - 43,897


sports facilities 3,753 20,331 66 9,229 358 - 33,737


cultural facilities 48,036 41,734 - 41,550 110 - 131,431

7B (iv) Number of health

facilities improved 49 131 1 18 15 - 213

7B (v) Number of sports

facilities improved 50 100 - 20 1 - 172


facilities improved 140 33 4 4 - - 181


organisations supported 5,941 2,218 177 486 64 232 9,118


organisations supported 2,711 1,818 479 213 2,907 193 8,319

8C Number of individuals 11,452 11,102 934 608 484 783 25,363



Pan-London Total

involved in voluntary work


volunteering schemes 153 1,007 2 0 - 46 1,208

10A Number of childcare

places provided 1,884 2,152 6,329 262 - 12 10,638


As per Tables 6.18 and 6.19, applying the gross to net metrics to the various output categoriesreduces the levels of “claimable” outputs for all categories. However, again, because the same metricsare applied equally across all the sub-regions there is no change in the relative proportions of outputsthe different sub-regions contribute to overall programme performance.


Understanding the impact of SRB at the local and regional level is challenging for a number of reasonsand it is not possible to provide a definitive or even outline view of the impact of SRB spending acrossLondon.

In many cases evaluation reports shied away from making definitive statements on impacts. In othercases, partnerships developed elaborate data baselines to track macro-level statistics for their area,with the expectation that SRB funding could affect these macro-trends. This approach, while notunreasonable, suffers from a number of methodological challenges. First, data is not always availableat the level of geography at which SRB schemes are taking place. Second, there is a time lag (oftenyears) between when an intervention takes place and when data becomes publicly available. Finally,the lack of any proper investigation of deadweight in most evaluations means that attributingquantitative causality (and not just correlation) to SRB spend is not advisable.

There was often a misunderstanding about what constituted impacts and outcomes, and SRBevaluation reports were prone to refer to outputs as impacts and outcomes. Reports would often notein the outcomes/impact section that “the scheme has been successful in securing jobs for 150 people”.This perhaps reflects the challenge of trying to measure or understand outcomes and impacts. As theHM Treasury Green Book notes, “sometimes outcomes cannot be directly measured and in whichcase it will often be appropriate to specify outputs, as intermediate steps along the way”.

Assuming that quantitative analysis of impacts cannot be relied on, there was some qualitativeevidence of the wider impacts of the London SRB programme. The “Young People Agents forChange” scheme sought to provide advice and guidance for young people not in education or training.The scheme followed the progress of people receiving support and noted that their academicperformance had generally improved over the lifetime of the scheme. This was combined with largelypositive feedback from beneficiaries about the support they had received.

In some cases, SRB schemes were thought to have delivered significant impacts for their areas. Forexample, the “Destination Wembley” report is bold enough to suggest the scheme was responsible forthe new national stadium being located at Wembley, due to the transport/infrastructure improvementsit delivered.



The evidence from evaluations and stakeholder consultations suggests that the success or failure ofSRB schemes was very often contingent on the strength of the partnerships developed.

In some cases, the cross-boundary nature of the SRB scheme meant that multiple local authoritieswere represented on partnerships. This did not always lend itself to strong partnership working. The“New Commitment to Kilburn” scheme straddled both Brent and Camden local authorities and the finalevaluation notes that partnership working was challenging; so challenging in fact that local residentsare taking legal action against the partnership.

The presence of multiple authorities on a partnership board was not always an impediment toprogress, however. In the “Finsbury Park SRB” scheme, three local authorities were represented onthe partnership. Despite the challenge this presented, the scheme was successful in securing a moreconsistent approach to matters such as street cleaning and policing. Another example is the“Changing Places, Changing London Lives” partnership, which was successful in working with threelocal authorities and Sustrans to develop the Wandle Cycle Path.

Where partnerships were less successful, evaluation reports often highlighted “a lack of engagement”from external partners. Often during SRB schemes, decisions on overall direction and spend are takenearly on in the scheme’s lifespan. As a result, partnerships sometimes have an early burst of energyand enthusiasm while the money is being distributed, but fail to sustain this level of engagementduring the later years of the scheme, when more prosaic tasks such as monitoring and evaluationbecome more important. A lack of private sector engagement was also highlighted in a number ofreports as being an issue for partnerships – very often the sometimes complex processes associatedwith spending public money can dissuade private sector engagement.

Other challenges faced by partnerships included balancing the aims and objectives of different interestgroups on the partnership. The partnership for the “Turning adversity into opportunity for refugees”scheme was noted as being fractious, at times, with tensions emerging about how resources werebeing shared among communities. The report on the “Enterprise and Communities” scheme suggeststhat the make up of the partnership meant it was not always possible for some partners to be frankand honest about the performance of the schemes and its projects.

In many cases SRB funding and the partnerships developed were responsible for bringing togethersometimes disparate partners to focus on a specific agenda. For example, the Keep London Workingevaluation noted that “the partnership was multi-disciplinary and bought together a wide range ofstakeholders.” The Young People Agents for Change scheme noted that the scheme had benefitedfrom a strong partnership and although private sector engagement was weak at first, this wasimproved through the efforts of the partnership Chair.

Those partnerships that endured post-SRB moved beyond being just “a short-term tactical alliance tobid for funding” towards being self-standing entities to provide a strategic lead for regeneration in theirlocales. Examples of successful partnerships include the Cross River Partnership, which delivered the“London South Central Connections” scheme, and the FinTrust partnership, which ran the “FinsburyPark SRB” scheme. Partners in the Cross River Partnership noted that the partnership had genuinelyallowed them to tackle “issues which would be harder, and in some cases impossible, on their own".


The evaluation evidence suggests that the governance and management of SRB schemes appears tohave been reasonably good. Very often management teams faced working in a challenging contextand having to deliver complex projects on budget and on time. These management teams were oftenput together at short notice and, in many cases, overcame significant early challenges to ensureschemes progressed and developed.


An important element of developing a successful portfolio of projects is ex-ante appraisal, but theviews on appraisal were mixed. For some schemes, the appraisal process was felt to have been toodrawn out and onerous. Other schemes used appraisal as a positive tool for fine-tuning projectproposals and getting delivery agencies to think hard about what was required of them. For example,the “White City” and “Bridging the Divide” schemes in Hammersmith and Fulham had individual projectappraisal boards based around the core themes for the scheme, e.g. sustainable communities. Theevaluation report notes that the process was recognised as being useful to delivery agencies inhelping them to understand the requirements for SRB funding. The “Young People Agents forChange” scheme was particularly proactive in its project appraisal process and actively sought toinclude young people in the process, to ensure project proposals were relevant to their needs.

In a small number of cases a lack of management capacity or poor management was thought to haveadversely affected a scheme’s performance. For example, the “Art of Regeneration” schememanagement was felt to have been weak on some fronts, which compromised the success of one itsmajor projects – The Albany Theatre. The “Bridging the Gap” scheme’s management was highlightedas being poor, with a lack of any protocols and systems meaning that no management information forthe scheme existed.

SRB schemes had a 5% cap of total funding to run the project management. This was felt by some tobe too little and didn’t reflect the nature of resources required in some schemes. For example, in the“Cityside” SRB scheme, there was a requirement for significant legal inputs, which were hard to fundunder SRB restrictions.

A familiar refrain was the bureaucracy requirements for SRB funding. This was not helped by SRBhaving such a wide range of output targets to measure and record progress against. Indeed, the rangeof output measures has almost certainly been a hindrance, rather than a help, in trying to understandhow SRB has performed. For example, the “Young People Agents for Change” scheme was widelyregarded as having been well managed by board members, the only negative cited was that themonitoring and evaluation requirements of the scheme were “unwieldy”.


One of the central tenets of SRB schemes was the engagement and involvement of local communitiesin the direction and management of SRB projects. As one consultee noted, community engagementwas sometimes very hard to do, but was absolutely crucial to the success of SRB.

A good starting point for stronger community engagement is representation on the partnership board.The Silwood SRB scheme report noted that the scheme had benefited from strong communityrepresentation on the board and the development of a community forum had strengthened communityengagement in the scheme.

Community engagement in the project development process was also recognised as being animportant factor in developing effective SRB schemes. The “Bridging the Gap” scheme evaluationhighlighted the fact that local community groups were involved in the design and planning of manyprojects. The “Leaside Regeneration” report makes the same point, but also notes that this process istime-consuming and requires a commitment from partners to ensure it is done properly. The “CitysideRegeneration” scheme placed a strong emphasis on community and business engagement and set upspecific focus groups for interested parties. For example, The Brick Lane Restaurant Associationserved as a focal point for discussing project developments. In the same scheme, the work undertakento engage local market traders meant that the Pettycoat Lane developments could be completed,despite disturbing the market, because traders understood what the project was looking to achieve.


Community engagement is a time consuming and sometimes costly process and not all schemessought to engage communities from the outset. The failure to consult communities did in some caseslead to disaffection among local people and in the case of the “Hackney Wick SRB” scheme, the plansfor the area had to be changed in light of community criticism.

Some of the more strategic schemes deliberately did not seek community involvement. For example,the “London South Central Connections” scheme was an overtly top-down operation that, unusually foran SRB scheme, sought to work at a strategic level. Other examples include the “London NewBusiness Creation” scheme.

Strategic impact

SRB was a funding pot for local-level regeneration. Schemes were sometimes a collection of projects,rather than a cohesive and strategic set of interventions that could deliver more than the sum of itsparts. There was no evidence of cross-scheme working between SRB partnerships.

Leverage

One of the more obvious strategic impacts of SRB funding was external money leveraged by SRBfunds. Table 6.18 highlights the levels of private and public sector funding that were generated by theLondon programme, for the £283 million of evaluated expenditure that contained leverage information.

For this £283 million of SRB spend, a further £293 million of private sector money and £449 million ofpublic sector money was leveraged. It should be noted that not all of this funding will have beenadditional – indeed there is a strong argument to be made that much of the public sector fundingwould have been spent anyway, although perhaps not always within the same geographies or tacklingthe same issues as SRB sought to address. Examples of strong leverage performance include the“London South Central Connections” scheme, which for £18 million of SRB funding attracted nearly£30 million of external money.

Table 6.18: Leverage in the London Region (£ million)

SRB Round SRB spend Private sectorfunding

Public sectorfunding

Leverage ratio

Round 3 117.9 151.0 185.7 £1 : £2.86

Round 4 43.1 67.5 97.0 £1 : £3.82

Round 5 121.9 74.6 166.5 £1 : £1.98

Round 6 164.9 296.9 163.4 £1 : £2.79

Total 282.9 293.0 449.2 £1 : £2.62

Source: LDA evaluation evidence

A less tangible strategic impact of SRB was the bringing together of sometimes disparate partners toaddress local issues. The extent to which this is a genuinely additional benefit is moot – in manycases it was the role and responsibility of agencies to tackle local problems using a partnershipapproach. However, SRB funding does seem to have played an important catalytic role in gettingpartners talking. In the case of “The Centre of Excellence for Manufacturing” there was a genuinesense that the multi-faceted nature of the problem meant that without the partnership approach fundedby SRB, the problems faced by manufacturers could not have been addressed. The “Cross RiverPartnership” was able to develop a Transport Strategy in partnership with groups such as Transportfor London and relevant local authorities.

For some partnerships influencing wider local authority agendas was not always easy. The Woodberry


Hill and Stamford Down evaluation noted that it was challenging for a local level partnership to try andengage in the wider borough-wide strategies, despite efforts to do so.


As expected, the sustainability of projects varied from scheme to scheme across the Londonprogramme. In some schemes there was no mention of post-SRB sustainability, sometimes forreasons unknown. For example, in the case of the “Safe in the City” scheme very little mention wasmade of future sustainability. The scheme had sought to bring about a new partnership approachacross eight clusters to deliver integrated homelessness services. While a laudable ambition, it is clearfrom the report that the cross-borough initiative, involving numerous different agencies, was alwaysgoing to face a challenge in changing the entrenched working practices of the participating localauthorities and agencies. Getting the partnership model to work was tough going and seemingly onlylimited energies were devoted to the sustainability of the scheme, post-SRB.

The next best scenario was for reports to have identified possible avenues for exploration for projectsto secure their future, post-SRB. For example, the “Building new links” scheme evaluation reportprovides a future strategy, with the recommendation that an SRB officer should examine the likelysustainability of projects.

Good examples of where projects had become self-sustaining before the end of SRB funding includethe development of the Finspace development in Finsbury Park. As well as being home to theFinfuture partnership which developed out of the SRB programme, it provides meeting and officespace which help to pay for its ongoing running costs. The Finspace centre is still running today. Inother schemes, the final reports were not always sanguine about the future sustainability of projects,but have been proven wrong. For example, the redevelopment of The Albany Theatre in Deptford aspart of the “Art of Regeneration” scheme was fraught with difficulties and the evaluation report notedserious weaknesses with the project, not least the lack of capacity to effectively run a community artsvenue. However, The Albany still exists today and still runs a community-based arts programme, aswas originally envisaged.

An unusual experiment tried during the “Children and Neighbourhoods in London” SRB programmewas to turn the delivery partnership into a consultancy. Significant experience had been built up ofworking with children and young people during ten years of SRB funding and a consulting service wasrecognised as being a good way of utilising this experience to generate revenue.

Local authorities have played a role in ensuring the sustainability of some projects by taking them intomainstream service delivery, although as with other SRB programmes elsewhere the evidence ofconsistent mainstreaming is limited. As some reports have noted, SRB schemes were often runacross local authority boundaries and trying to secure mainstream funding from multiple authoritiespresented a significant challenge. Examples of mainstreaming include the Cyber Centre funded by“Silwood SRB”, which secured mainstream funding from LearnDirect and Lewisham Council; the “EastBattersea Powerhouse Partnership”, which was successful in mainstreaming its ICT training servicesat Battersea Library; and the “Health Benefits” scheme, which was successful in mainstreaming anumber of projects, including the Place to Be project and the Nutrition in Schools project.

Value for money




A consistent strength of the SRB funding programme in London was the flexibility and long-termfunding it provided for grass roots, local regeneration. SRB in London funded thousands of discreteindividual projects within its 244 schemes, many of them tackling deprivation in some of London’spoorest areas. However, running so many projects may have increased the bureaucratic challengeand the administrative and management costs of running the programme. Also, importantly, funding somany discrete, local projects means that trying to understand the wider impact of SRB funding hasbeen challenging.

The SRB programme was certainly successful in drawing in sources of external funding to areaswhere public and private monies may not have been spent otherwise. This distributional impactachieved by SRB monies is perhaps one of the most significant benefits delivered by the fundingstream. Some consideration could perhaps be given to the opportunity cost of spending money in thisway (to assess if London could have got more for its money by spending it differently), but this isbeyond the scope of this work.

SRB monies also allowed for the development of local partnerships specifically tasked with deliveringlocal-level regeneration projects. These partnerships were not always successful, but on the wholethey provided a good institutional model for delivering local-level regeneration projects. A weakness ofthe programme was that sometimes these partnerships were an artificial construct that have notendured, post SRB. In such cases, the development and funding of partnerships perhaps did notalways provide high levels of value for money.

Community engagement in the regeneration process proved to be both a strength and a weakness.On the one hand it provided local communities with a real opportunity to engage in and influence theregeneration of their local area. However, sometimes community expectations as to what wasachievable or realistic were unreasonable and this sometimes created tensions within partnerships.

SRB partnerships often sought to develop physical resources such as community centres for theirlocal areas. These developments were mixed in their success. For example, the Rich Mix project inBethnal Green has faced a challenge in becoming a self-sustaining entity – in its first full year ofoperation it lost over £800,000. However, despite this, the project achieved a surplus of £27,000 inthe first three quarters of 2007/08.

Conclusions

The nature of SRB funding – long term, flexible and partnership driven – afforded the opportunity totackle entrenched problems in some of London’s poorest areas. SRB evaluations were broadlypositive about the performance of London’s SRB schemes. The London SRB programme largely hitthe output targets set for it. However, within this broad picture there was significant variation inperformance between schemes. The output regime for SRB, while comprehensive, was alsocomplicated and there was potentially a significant cost associated with partnerships trying to measureand record performance against the numerous output categories.

A tangible achievement of SRB was the leveraging of significant sums of private and public money. Aswas noted earlier, much of this money may not have been additional at the level of London or even atthe local authority level. Certainly a case could be made that much of the public sector leveragefunding would have been spent anyway. Debates about additionality aside, SRB served to provide afocus for investment in poor areas, often providing the pump prime funding to create the conditions toattract public and private investment.

The legacy of SRB in London is hard to judge. There are certainly examples of where the programmedelivered either projects or benefits that still endure. However, there remains a sense from theevaluation evidence that too often partnerships funded short-term initiatives dictated by SRB’s fundingstrictures. It also appears that SRB’s local focus, while a significant strength, was also to some extent


a weakness. This meant that some schemes struggled to achieve any strategic coherence outside oftheir locales – this despite the objective that Round 6 schemes in particular should contribute to theRegional Economic Strategy (RES). However, the London programme did contain a number of pan-London programmes which attempted to deliver more strategic interventions across the city – althoughthe suggestion is that sustainability and mainstreaming of these interventions has been limited.


7 The impact of SRB in the NorthWest

Introduction

This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the NorthWest region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this reportand includes:

background information on the North West region;








Overview of the North West region

The North West consists of the two metropolitan areas of Greater Manchester and Merseyside and thethree counties of Cheshire, Cumbria, and Lancashire. The region stretches 250km, from the Scottishborder in the North to the Dee estuary and the Welsh border in the South, and is bounded on the westby the Irish Sea and on the east by the Pennine hills. Some 80% of the region is rural, agricultural oropen woodland, yet four-fifths of people live in urban areas, with 60% living in the conurbations ofLiverpool and Manchester.

In 2006 the North West had a population of 6.9 million, a decrease of 1.3% since 1981. Populationdensity was highest in Blackpool, with 4,088 people per square kilometre in 2006. Manchester andLiverpool also had high population densities, with 3,908 and 3,899 people per square kilometrerespectively.

Recent labour market data (not seasonally adjusted) covering the period January to December 2007from the Annual Population Survey (previously the Labour Force Survey) indicates that theemployment rate of working age people in the region (72.3%) is slightly below the UK average of74.3%. The unemployment rate (5.8%) is higher than the UK average of 5.3%. Gross Value Added


(GVA) per head in the region in 2006 was £16,234, which is 87% of GVA per head for the UK as awhole. Overall GVA for the region in 2006 was approximately £111.3 billion and had grown by 4.5%since 2005.


22in England are in the North West region. This is the

highest proportion of any English region (by comparison, London is the next highest, accounting for20.5% of the most deprived SOAs).

This figure masks some significant sub-regional variations, as outlined in Table 7.1:

Table 7.1: SRB deprivation figures for sub-regions within NWDA

Sub-region Number of SOAs inthe sub-region inbottom IMD quartilenationally

% of SOAs in the sub-region as a whole

% of regional total inlowest IMD quartilenationally

Cheshire 131 14% 8%

Cumbria 73 7% 4%

Greater Manchester 747 37% 43%

Lancashire 283 21% 16%

Merseyside 492 20% 29%

Total 1,726 100% 100%


The major conurbations of Greater Manchester and Merseyside account for a significant proportion ofthe region’s population, as well as containing the vast majority of its deprived areas (72% of theregion’s total between them). Lancashire’s towns, such as Blackburn, Burnley and Blackpool, alsocontain high levels of deprivation. Cheshire and Cumbria, both more rural in character, account forjust 12% of the most deprived SOAs between them. Cheshire in particular is a strong economic sub-region in the North West, which will contribute to its lower levels of deprivation. Cumbria suffers fromsome major deprivation problems, but these tend to occur within a sparse and relatively smallpopulation.

Regional context




Table 7.2: Number of SRB schemes in the North West Region

SRB Round Number of SRB schemes in theregion (% of total schemes in the

region)

Number of SRB schemesnationally (% of total schemes

nationally)

Round 1 35 (23%) 201 (20%)

Round 2 19 (13%) 172 (17%)

Round 3 33 (22%) 182 (18%)

Round 4 21 (14%) 121 (12%)

Round 5 23 (15%) 163 (16%)

Round 6 20 (13%) 189 (18%)

Overall total 151 (100%) 1,028 (100%)

Rounds 3-6 Total 97 (64%) 655 (64%)

Source: CLG

Two-thirds (64%) of the region’s SRB schemes have taken place in Rounds 3 to 6, the sameproportion as for the national programme. Broadly speaking, proportions between the Rounds havealso mirrored the national trend, with the outlier being Round 6, which accounted for 13% of the NorthWest’s total compared to the national level of 18%.

SRB expenditure



SRB Round SRB expenditure (£m) % of region’s totalSRB expenditure


Round 1 216.9 20% 4%

Round 2 220.6 20% 19%

Round 3 141.9 13% 15%

Round 4 53.1 5% 17%

Round 5 217.8 20% 21%

Round 6 231.6 21% 19%


Rounds 3-6 Total 644.4 60% 18%

Source: CLG

The North West received more than £200 million for four of the six SRB rounds. Round 4 was thesmallest (as it was nationally), accounting for £53 million, or 5% of the region’s overall programme.Sixty per cent of the expenditure fell between Rounds 3 to 6, which closely mirrors the proportion ofschemes contained in those rounds (64%, from Table 7.2).


In each round, the North West received a fairly common proportion of national SRB funds, rangingfrom 15% in Round 3 to 21% in Round 5. Overall, the North West received 19% of the national shareof SRB funds, which compares quite favourably with its 21% share of deprivation, as measured bySOAs in Table 3.3.

Table 7.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of NWDA’s budgeted expenditure per SRB round.

Table 7.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per round, per sub-region (£ million)


Cheshire 13.5 1.1 0.7 - 15.3

Cumbria 1.1 3.1 7.7 10.6 22.5

Greater

Manchester45.3 17.3 102.2 36.3 201.0

Lancashire 31.2 4.5 42.8 115.0 193.5

Merseyside 34.5 27.2 64.5 69.7 195.9

Pan-regional 16.2 - - - 16.2

Totals 141.9 53.1 217.8 231.6 644.4


Between them, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire accounted for 92% of SRB spendacross Rounds 3 to 6, split approximately into equal thirds. The largest single Round for a sub-regionwas Round 6 for Lancashire, which received £115 million. In the same round, Cheshire receivednothing.

Table 7.5 outlines actual SRB expenditure by NWDA between 2002/03 and 2006/07, which is the‘relevant expenditure’ period in the overall RDA impact evaluation.



2002/03 46.2

2003/04 97.6

2004/05 66.8

2005/06 67.9

2006/07 43.2

Overall total 321.8

Source: NWDA

NWDA’s total relevant expenditure for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is £1,469.7million. This means that SRB accounts for 22% of NWDA’s expenditure in the overall RDA impactevaluation.

The figures in Table 7.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that wehave evaluated, as some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from2002/03 to 2006/07. However, all the Rounds 3 to 6 outputs are included in the meta-evaluation,which means we have to be very careful when comparing inputs with outputs.


Evidence gathering

Evaluation evidence



Table 7.6: SRB evaluation evidence received by round

SRB

Round

Total number

of SRB

schemes

Number of

schemes with

usable evidence

received

Percentage of

schemes for

that Round

Percentage of

Expenditure for

that Round

Amount of

Expenditure for

that Round (£m)

Round 3 33 12 36% 46% 65.6

Round 4 21 11 52% 64% 33.9

Round 5 23 14 61% 64% 138.8

Round 6 20 13 65% 70% 161.2

Total 97 50 52% 62% 399.5

Source: York Consulting. Expenditure in this table refers to forecast SRB expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from CLG

data.

This provides us with an overall coverage of 62% of expenditure across the relevant rounds. OnlyRound 3 falls below 60% coverage, which perhaps reflects the time that has elapsed since many ofthe schemes ended, and the consequent reduced likelihood of being able to source schemeevaluations (coverage rises with every round). In terms of scheme numbers, we have coverage ofmore than 50% of schemes in three of the four rounds, and 52% overall. Again, we have leastevaluation evidence for Round 3 schemes (36%).

Table 7.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme.


SRB Round Number of

schemes

under £1m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Number of

schemes

£1m - £3m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Number of

schemes

above £3m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Round 3 6 1 6 1 21 10

Round 4 6 2 7 3 8 6

Round 5 3 1 3 3 17 10

Round 6 2 0 1 0 17 13

Total 17 4 17 7 63 39


Schemes of more than £3 million in value were most common in the North West, in all rounds,accounting for 63, or 65% of all schemes. Coverage of this category of schemes is greatest, with 39


(62%) evaluations received. Coverage of smaller schemes declines with size, with only 4 evaluationsavailable for the 17 schemes worth £1 million or less. This probably reflects a greater emphasis fromfunders and accountable bodies to have evaluations completed for more substantial schemes, andsubsequently to retain the documentation.

We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individualevaluations can tell us about RDAs’ expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 7.8 provides anoverview of what we have found.


SRB Round Total number of

evaluations received

Evaluations with actual

and forecast


Evaluations with

gross outputs

included

Evaluations with

net outputs

included

Round 3 12 10 10 0

Round 4 11 11 8 1

Round 5 14 14 12 1

Round 6 13 13 12 0

Total 50 48 42 2


The vast majority of evaluations received have provided data on SRB expenditure and gross outputs,although there have been a number of permutations, e.g. actual outputs without forecast figures.Round 6 has provided the strongest evidence overall. However, Rounds 4 and 5 provided oneevaluation each that considered additionality and estimated net outputs.

The sourcing of only two reports that provide relevant information on additionality means that we willneed to apply the additionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to NWDA’s gross SRBoutputs, in order to estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although notideal, this approach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as beingthe best option available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found inSection 4, which explains the meta-evaluation’s approach and methodology.


Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with key strategicstakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitativeinformation about the nature and impact of SRB in the region – in effect, to understand some of thenuances that may not be apparent from reading evaluation reports.

We spoke to a mixture of people, both within NWDA and amongst external partners, to try tounderstand more about NWDA’s overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to thedelivery of individual projects and schemes. Who we spoke to was entirely at the discretion of the RDA– the stakeholders were nominated by the RDA, as the people they believed would be the most helpfulto us in this task. A full list of stakeholder consultees can be found at Appendix C.

The stakeholder consultations have proved very beneficial in augmenting the evaluation evidence wehave reviewed.


Gross outputs




Core RDA outputs


Table 7.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by the SRB programme in theNorth West Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgetedSRB expenditure of £400 million, or 62% of the budgeted £644 million SRB spend.

Table 7.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the North West Region

Output category Cheshire Cumbria Greater

Manchester

Lancashire Mersey-

side

Regional Total

1A (i) Number of jobs

created2761 1090 11216 6452 7702 1052 30,271


safeguarded1702 910 15184 4674 5123 1423 29,016

1C Number of people

trained obtaining

qualifications

3384 2095 34222 14192 11370 1983 67,246


supported surviving 52

weeks

233 142 550 835 266 0 2,026

6B Land improved /

reclaimed for

development (Ha)

54 1 726 11 38 32 861


enterprise start-ups12 10 338 67 52 0 479

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on CLG data and evaluation evidence provided by NWDA

In gross terms, SRB created more than 30,000 jobs in the North West and safeguarded a similarnumber. No single scheme accounted for a majority of job created outputs, with nine creating over


1,000 jobs and three (Investing in the Future: Pathways to Progress, the Epicentre/Heart of the Portscheme and the Integrating and Sustaining Communities Programme) delivering over 2,000 jobs.

Some 67,000 people obtained qualifications through training. In all three of these categories, GreaterManchester (the largest sub-region in deprivation and SRB funding terms) delivered the most outputs:37% of the jobs created, 52% of jobs safeguarded and 51% of the qualifications. The schemes withthe largest single achieved outputs of qualifications through training were the Welfare to Work Plusscheme, with over 4,000 individuals, and the Partington and Carrington Regeneration scheme, whereover 5,500 individuals obtained qualifications through training.

SRB also created over 2,000 businesses that survived for at least one year, and 479 communityenterprise start-ups. Lancashire delivered the greatest number of businesses (41%), and GreaterManchester the most community enterprises (71%).

In land reclamation, Greater Manchester delivered 84% of the region’s 861 hectares of reclaimeddevelopment land, reflecting the large scale physical regeneration developments in the city. Schemesin Hattersley (SRB3) and Oldham (SRB6) between them accounted for 74% of the regional total.

When compared to their expenditure, however, it is clear that the proportionate contribution of theoutput targets varied. For example, Cheshire delivered a greater percentage of all core outputcategories except land reclamation, when compared to its regional proportion of SRB spend (2%).Greater Manchester and Cumbria fared similarly well. Conversely, Lancashire and Merseyside onlydelivered a greater percentage of outputs in a single category (business creation and land reclamationrespectively), relative to their proportions of regional spend (both had 30% each of the regional pot).


Of the remaining 57 outputs, we have categorised twenty-three as ‘other economic’ outputs – outputsthat have a distinct economic focus to them, but which are not included in the RDA’s core outputs.

Table 7.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe North West Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account forbudgeted SRB expenditure of £400 million, or 62% of the budgeted £644 million SRB spend.

Table 7.10: Gross ‘other economic’ outputs in the North West Region


Manchester

Lancashire Merseyside Regional Total

1A (iii) Number of

construction jobs

(person weeks)

21325 18864 155864 43693 53196 0 292,942

1B Number of pupils

benefiting from

projects to improve

attainment

17872 7056 217266 72091 72007 0 386,292

1D Number of

residents accessing

employment through

training advice

777 901 15435 4672 8023 0 29,808

1E Number of

training weeks9258 11858 144047 108185 81931 1817 357,096

1F (i) Number of

people trained

gaining jobs

9 1360 5354 1348 2680 0 10,751

1F (ii) Who were 17 829 4549 826 1029 0 7,250



Manchester


formerly unemployed

1G Number entering

self employment13 201 1387 1131 841 0 3,573

1G (ii) Who were

formerly unemployed0 131 926 451 344 0 1,852

1I (i) Number from

disadvantaged

groups targeted who

gain job

36 191 7492 1660 360 0 9,739

1J Number of young

people benefiting

from projects to

promote personal

and social

development

33247 14738 265626 161473 147470 0 622,554

1K (i) Number of

employers in

collaborative projects

with educational

institutions to

improve student

performance

3021 230 2701 1756 1405 0 9,113

1K (ii) Number of

students in


0 38 15345 18743 2604 0 36,730

1L (i) Number of

teachers in target

area on placement

into business

0 12 142 170 34 0 358

2A Number of new

business start-ups520 312 2995 1497 1631 0 6,955

2B (i)

Business/commercial

floorspace improved

(m2)

73542 23900 166299 47586 237642 0 548,969

2B (ii) New

business/commercial

floorspace (m2)

6257 20924 324103 29582 234146 0 615,012

2C (i) New

businesses

supported

7 146 1575 2038 745 0 4,511

2C (iii) Surviving 78

weeks149 126 472 409 72 0 1,228

2D Number of

businesses receiving

advice as a result of

SRB-assisted

activities

2811 894 37670 18643 9278 4200 73,496



Manchester


6A Land

improved/reclaimed

for open space (Ha)

55 27 21059 88 178 0 21,407

6C Number of

buildings back into

use

21 27 2955 26 186 260 3,475

6D (i) Roads built

(km)0 1 224 1 9 0 236

6D (ii) Roads

improved (km)1 0 410 1 30 0 443

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on CLG data and evaluation evidence provided by NWDA

These other economic outputs deliver some very large numbers, particularly for:

construction jobs (293,000 person weeks) – with particular contributions from the Wirral WaterfrontScheme and the Epicentre and Heart of the Port Schemes;

pupils assisted with their attainment (386,000) – the North West Social and Economic Inclusionscheme accounted for nearly 100,000 of these, with the East Wythenshawe SRB3 schemecontributing over 65,000;

number of training weeks (357,000) – with the Welfare to Work Plus scheme the most significantcontributor at just under 50,000, with a further notable contribution from the Pendle Kickstart forJobs Scheme (over 31,000);

young people benefiting from personal and social development (622,000) – the Revitalising InnerRochdale scheme contributing delivering over 70,000 of these, with the East Wythenshawe SRB3scheme contributing just under 65,000; and

business floorspace square footage (549,000 improved and 615,000 new).

Once again, Greater Manchester provided the greatest proportion of these outputs. In 13 of 23categories, it delivered more than half of the region’s total outputs, most notably land improved orreclaimed for open space (98% of the regional total), and roads built and improved (95% and 93%respectively). Lancashire delivered the greatest proportion of teachers on business placement (47%)and Merseyside the largest amount of improved business/commercial floorspace (43%). Cheshiredelivered one-third of the employer-education collaborative projects.



Table 7.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemesin the North West Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account forbudgeted SRB expenditure of £400 million, or 62% of the budgeted £644 million SRB spend.


Table 7.11: Gross ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the North West Region


Manchester


3A (i) Number of

private dwellings

completed

260 194 1175 8895 0 0 10,524

3A (ii) Number of

private dwellings

improved

155 194 1600 715 137 0 2,801

3A (iii) Number of

local authority

dwellings completed

0 0 2643 53836 0 0 56,479

3A (iv) Number of

local authority

dwellings improved

915 0 8622 0 0 0 9,537

3A (v) Number of

housing association

dwellings completed

218 25 432 0 1127 0 1,802

3A (vi) Number of

housing association

dwellings improved

5 0 7634 8 152 0 7,799

3B Number of

dwellings in tenant

management

organisation

0 0 213 0 0 0 213

5A (i) Number

benefiting community

safety initiatives

33712 32521 796970 61746 261752 0 1,186,701

5A (ii) Aged over 60 889 3486 56810 7906 7071 0 76,162

5A (iii) Females 791 2850 56255 19931 8550 0 88,377

5B (i) Number of

dwellings with

upgraded security

2399 2588 27776 3265 30872 0 66,900

5B (ii) Number of

commercial buildings

with upgraded security

460 2150 4402 414 260 360 8,046

5C Number of

community safety

initiatives

106 128 2146 405 813 0 3,598

5D (i) Number of

youth crime


233 196 3273 339 1516 0 5,557

5D (ii) Number

attending crime


208 317 37058 21991 13251 0 72,825

6E Number of traffic

calming measures5 2 2665 9 2 0 2,683



Manchester


6F Number of waste


schemes

2 3 662 133 151 86 1,037

7A (i) People access

to new health facilities39959 26505 141900 94085 73267 0 375,716

7A (ii) People access

to new sports facilities6300 36749 103541 16524 43859 0 206,973

7A (iii) People access

to new cultural

facilities

73577 126233 1154837 57699 1437032 0 2,849,378

7A (iv) Number of new

health facilities1 17 2961 179 41 0 3,199

7A (v) Number of new

sports facilities7 7 3587 19 41 0 3,661

7A (vi) Number of new

cultural facilities0 5 677 31 149 0 862

7B (i) Number using

improved health

facilities

4004 2563 33158 15715 24246 0 79,686

7B (ii) Number using

improved sports

facilities

1900 3518 12932 2067 18338 0 38,755

7B (iii) Number using

improved cultural

facilities

7789 42789 58184 63309 71753 0 243,824

7B (iv) Number of

health facilities

improved

1 8 3623 66 87 0 3,785

7B (v) Number of

sports facilities

improved

23 5 947 1 31 0 1,007

7B (vi) Number of

cultural facilities

improved

34 6 692 78 181 0 991

8A (i) Number of

voluntary

organisations

supported

777 91 8142 2124 3368 40 14,542

8A (ii) Number of

community

organisations

supported

469 348 5769 2936 4773 0 14,295

8C Number of

individuals involved in

voluntary work

1837 520 23428 8955 8733 0 43,473



Manchester


8D Number of

employee

volunteering schemes

0 2 2886 110 35 31 3,064

10A Number of

childcare places

provided

944 195 148696 4222 1584 0 155,641

Source: York Consulting analysis based on CLG data and evaluation evidence provided by NWDA

Once again, there are some substantial output figures here. In total (i.e. all housing types, sixseparate output categories), 89,000 dwellings were completed or improved; more than one millionpeople benefited from community safety initiatives; and nearly 3.5 million people had access to newcultural, sports and health facilities. Schemes contributing significantly to these outputs achievedinclude:

Building Better Communities in Skelmersdale – with over 53,000 local authority dwellingscompleted, and nearly 9,000 private dwellings completed;

four schemes delivered community safety initiatives which benefited over 100,000 people –Welfare to Work Plus; the Epicentre and Heart of the Port Schemes; South Sefton; and theAvenCentral SRB6 scheme; and

the AvenCentral SRB6 scheme delivered access to new health facilities for 122,213 people, withthe same scheme providing access to new cultural facilities for over 1 million individuals, a figurealso achieved by the South Sefton SRB scheme.

The pattern of performance at sub-regional level continues, with Greater Manchester providing morethan half of the outputs in 24 of the 34 non-economic categories, and at least 90% in ten of these.



Table 7.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the North West Region


Number of jobs created 100%

Number of jobs safeguarded 112%

Number of people trained obtaining qualifications 142%

New businesses supported surviving 52 weeks 116%

Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha) 97%

Number of community enterprise start-ups 117%

Source: York Consulting analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from NWDA

The table shows that the North West SRB programme performed well against core RDA outputtargets. In five of the six categories performance exceeded target, but not excessively so. In the sixth


category, the target was virtually met. In the absence of background detail on the target-settingprocess, this provides some reassurance that the targets set were achievable, but stretching.

One output category, land for development, was exceeded by nearly 2,500%. This is accounted for bytwo specific schemes which significantly over-performed against very low original targets – the SouthSefton scheme achieved 10,432 hectares, against a reported target of 10 hectares; and the OldhamRoute to Renaissance scheme achieved 263 hectares, against a reported target of 2 hectares. Ifthese two results are removed, regional performance falls to 97%.


Table 7.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the North WestRegion












social development234%


institutions to improve student performance95%









activities242%





Source: York Consulting analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from NWDA


The picture of good performance continues through these other economic outputs, although there isgreater variance. In nine categories, the schemes have exceeded their targets by no more than150%. In a further seven categories, the performance is even higher, which suggests that target-setting may either not have been so accurate, or that estimating performance against certain metricswas difficult. In the case of land for open space, the performance of 967% is due to two very highperforming schemes – the Oldham Route to Renaissance scheme achieved over 11,000 hectares,against a reported target of 2 hectares; the Wigan – Regeneration Working Together schemeachieved 9,114 hectares, against a reported target of 61 hectares. Regional performance falls to 56%without these two results.

In five categories, the region’s schemes achieved between 80% and 99% of their targets. Only two fellbelow this level – the number of construction jobs (56%) and the number of teachers on placementwith business (78%).








































Source: York Consulting analysis, based on SRB evaluation evidence received from NWDA

Performance against target has been poor in relation to housing development outputs. Six of theseven housing outputs underperformed, achieving between 13% and 78% of their targets. Theconsistency of this underperformance suggests that target-setting may not have been accurate in thissector, although the reasons for this are unclear.

Outputs relating to security and crime prevention have proved easier to meet, with seven of the eightcategories exceeding their targets by between 143% and 321%. Similarly, outputs relating to theimprovement and use of health, cultural and sports facilities have also been strong performers. Onceagain, ‘extreme’ over performance of more than 1,000% in two categories can be explained bysignificant delivery in a very small number of schemes.








Net outputs

Core RDA outputs

Applying the additionality coefficients to NWDA’s gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides aview of the net core RDA outputs for the SRB programme in the North West Region, as illustrated inTable 7.15.

Table 7.15: Net core RDA outputs in the North West Region


Manchester


1A (i) Number of

jobs created1132 447 4598 2645 3158 431 12,411

1A (ii) Number of

jobs safeguarded732 391 6529 2010 2203 612 12,477

1C Number of

people trained

obtaining

qualifications

1895 1173 19164 7948 6367 1110 37,658

2C (ii) New

businesses

supported surviving

52 weeks

103 62 242 367 117 0 891

6B Land improved /

reclaimed for

development (Ha)

26 0 356 5 19 16 422

8E Number of

community

enterprise start-ups

9 8 264 52 41 0 374

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on CLG/University of Cambridge data and NWDA evaluation evidence

SRB in the North West has delivered more than 24,000 net jobs created or safeguarded, and over37,000 people have obtained qualifications. Greater Manchester has provided the bulk of theseopportunities. Nearly 900 businesses have been created and survived for at least one year, 68% ofwhich were created in Lancashire and Greater Manchester. More than 400 hectares of land has beenimproved or reclaimed for development, particularly in Greater Manchester.

Across all of the categories, the three sub-regions with the largest conurbations, and the greatestdeprivation levels, have delivered the vast majority of outputs; at least 80% in all categories.


Table 7.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in theNorth West Region.


Table 7.16: Net ‘other economic’ outputs in the North West Region


Manchester


1A (iii) Number of

construction jobs (person

weeks)

8957 7923 65463 18351 22342 0 123,036

1B Number of pupils

benefiting from projects

to improve attainment

9472 3740 115151 38208 38164 0 204,735


accessing employment

through training advice

482 559 9570 2897 4974 0 18,481

1E Number of training

weeks3333 4269 51857 38947 29495 654 128,555

1F (i) Number of people

trained gaining jobs5 680 2677 674 1340 0 5,375


unemployed8 398 2184 396 494 0 3,480


employment7 115 791 645 479 0 2,037

1G (ii) Who were

formerly unemployed0 73 519 253 193 0 1,037

1I (i) Number from

disadvantaged groups

targeted who gain job

22 117 4570 1013 220 0 5,941

1J Number of young

people benefiting from

projects to promote

personal and social

development

15626 6927 124844 75892 69311 0 292,600

1K (i) Number of

employers in


with educational

institutions to improve

student performance

1813 138 1621 1054 843 0 5,468

1K (ii) Number of

students in collaborative

projects

0 19 7519 9184 1276 0 17,998

1L (i) Number of

teachers in target area

on placement into

business

0 7 87 104 21 0 218

2A Number of new

business start-ups218 131 1258 629 685 0 2,921

2B (i) Business /

commercial floorspace

improved (m2)

26475 8604 59868 17131 85551 0 197,629



Manchester


2B (ii) New

business/commercial

floorspace (m2)

2816 9416 145846 13312 105366 0 276,755


supported3 64 693 897 328 0 1,985

2C (iii) Surviving 78

weeks69 58 217 188 33 0 565

2D Number of

businesses receiving

advice as a result of


1209 384 16198 8016 3990 1806 31,603

6A Land

improved/reclaimed for

open space (Ha)

42 20 16005 67 135 0 16,269

6C Number of buildings

back into use11 14 1566 14 99 138 1,842

6D (i) Roads built (km) 0 1 119 1 5 0 125

6D (ii) Roads improved

(km)1 0 308 1 23 0 332


After accounting for additionality, there are still some substantial numbers of outputs accruing to theregion’s SRB schemes, for example in terms of the amount of commercial/business floorspace createdor improved.


Table 7.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe North West Region.

Table 7.17: Net ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the North West Region


Manchester


3A (i) Number of

private dwellings

completed

109 81 494 3736 0 0 4,420

3A (ii) Number of

private dwellings

improved

73 91 752 336 64 0 1,316

3A (iii) Number of

local authority

dwellings completed

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A (iv) Number of

local authority

dwellings improved

458 0 4311 0 0 0 4,769

3A (v) Number of

housing association98 11 194 0 507 0 811



Manchester


dwellings completed

3A (vi) Number of

housing association

dwellings improved

3 0 3817 4 76 0 3,900

3B Number of

dwellings in tenant

management

organisation

0 0 138 0 0 0 138

5A (i) Number

benefiting community

safety initiatives

17530 16911 414424 32108 136111 0 617,085

5A (ii) Aged over 60 436 1708 27837 3874 3465 0 37,319

5A (iii) Females 372 1340 26440 9368 4019 0 41,537

5B (i) Number of

dwellings with

upgraded security

1176 1268 13610 1600 15127 0 32,781

5B (ii) Number of

commercial buildings

with upgraded security

258 1204 2465 232 146 202 4,506

5C Number of

community safety

initiatives

54 65 1094 207 415 0 1,835

5D (i) Number of

youth crime


126 106 1767 183 819 0 3,001

5D (ii) Number

attending crime


146 222 25941 15394 9276 0 50,978

6E Number of traffic

calming measures2 1 1253 4 1 0 1,261

6F Number of waste


schemes

2 2 503 101 115 65 788

7A (i) People access

to new health facilities25174 16698 89397 59274 46158 0 236,701

7A (ii) People access

to new sports facilities3843 22417 63160 10080 26754 0 126,254

7A (iii) People access

to new cultural

facilities

48561 83314 762192 38081 948441 0 1,880,589


health facilities1 11 1925 116 27 0 2,079

7A (v) Number of new

sports facilities4 4 2224 12 25 0 2,270

7A (vi) Number of new 0 3 460 21 101 0 586



Manchester


cultural facilities

7B (i) Number using

improved health

facilities

2523 1615 20890 9900 15275 0 50,202


improved sports

facilities

931 1724 6337 1013 8986 0 18,990


improved cultural

facilities

3739 20539 27928 30388 34441 0 117,036

7B (iv) Number of

health facilities

improved

1 4 1812 33 44 0 1,893

7B (v) Number of

sports facilities

improved

14 3 568 1 19 0 604

7B (vi) Number of

cultural facilities

improved

17 3 339 38 89 0 486

8A (i) Number of

voluntary

organisations

supported

482 56 5048 1317 2088 25 9,016

8A (ii) Number of

community

organisations

supported

310 230 3808 1938 3150 0 9,435

8C Number of

individuals involved in

voluntary work

1047 296 13354 5104 4978 0 24,780

8D Number of

employee


0 1 1876 72 23 20 1,992

10A Number of

childcare places

provided

472 98 74348 2111 792 0 77,821


The effect of moving from gross to net is perhaps most clearly visible in this table where particularlylarge numbers are concerned. For example, the number of people accessing new cultural facilitiesdrops from 2.8 million to 1.2 million. Nevertheless, the table does demonstrate the significant rangeand extent of SRB non-economic outputs.



There is a significant challenge in understanding the totality of the region’s SRB outcomes andimpacts. First, evaluators have been very critical of the way in which schemes have developedbaselines and indicators that allow an assessment of impact to be made. A total of 17 evaluationreports comment on the lack of a baseline, or the unsuitability of indicators relative to a scheme’sactivities and outputs. Second, where suitable, timely and spatially accurate information is availableand trends are possible to establish, attribution to the performance of an SRB scheme or itsconstituent projects is very hard to determine, and most evaluations have not tried. Third, stakeholderconsultations have tended to focus on process impacts of SRB (such as partnership and communityengagement) rather than more specific social or economic outcomes.

Most of the evaluations reviewed for the North West rely on a relatively small group of socio-economicdatasets to estimate impact. By far the most common are those for school-age educationperformance (Key Stages, GCSE); worklessness (target group unemployment, claimant counts); andcrime. Other less frequently used indicators include business start-up rates, wage rates and housingtenure type.

When reflecting on the rationale and objectives of SRB, it is clear to see the relevance of education,employment and crime on levels of deprivation. But that is not the whole picture, and an over-relianceon these datasets alone is not likely to provide an accurate picture of SRB’s overall impact, relative toits activities and outputs. Consider, for example, the number of categories and outputs relating tohousing improvement, land reclamation, business creation and community facilities.

Even based on the limited evidence available from the evaluations, the regional picture of impact is byno means clear. At the programme level, performance tends to be a mixture of the good (for example,falling crime rates) and the bad (e.g. poorer GCSE attainment). We have not been able to identify anyconsistent messages in terms of regional movement in narrowing the gap between the most and leastdeprived parts of the North West.


The messages from the evaluations on partnership are much clearer. A majority of schemes appearto have been run with a strong partnership element underpinning strategic and operational activity.

Schemes tended to exhibit a steep learning curve in partnership development, except for when apartnership ‘rolled over’ from one SRB Round to another. However, with time, initial teething problemsand misunderstandings seem to have been generally ironed out.

The focus of partnership activity varied from scheme to scheme. However, larger schemes tended tobe characterised by thematic-level partnership activity, or partnerships created around particularlylarge individual projects. At this operational/delivery level, partnership working helped to deliver betteractivities by, for example, ensuring consistency of approach across service delivery bodies, oreffective engagement with service users or project beneficiaries. At a more strategic level, partnershipactivity focused on the Board, which is the subject of the next sub-section.

In a number of cases, the SRB experience of partnership appears to have helped the development ofother partnership structures, such as those created to deliver Neighbourhood Renewal Fundprogrammes and Local Strategic Partnerships.

Partnership is not without its criticisms; most notably, there is a common view that the right partnerswere either not always invited to participate, or they demonstrated highly variable commitment andengagement. In particular, a majority of evaluations expressed a view suggesting that the privatesector was not sufficiently part of SRB’s partnership structure. Evaluations also suggest thatpartnership enthusiasm tended to wane towards the end of a scheme’s life.



There was limited comment in the evaluations on governance mechanisms, aside from reviewing therepresentativeness of the relevant SRB boards. Where Board performance was considered, thecommon view was that it tended to focus on operational rather than strategic matters, although theextent of this varied between schemes.

Programme management was generally assessed as having been good. A large number ofevaluations reported the challenges of ensuring the successful management of SRB, includingcapacity constraints, high staff turnover or retention problems and a generally steep learning curve.Management and core administration costs across the region’s SRB programme were typically around5% of total SRB expenditure.

Project application and appraisal systems were less commonly evaluated. Where this has takenplace, the general assessment is that they were sound, although smaller organisations and projectsappear to have struggled on occasion with the application forms and appraisal bureaucracy (althoughthese systems appear to vary from scheme to scheme). More generally, there is some rather broad-brush criticism of the levels of bureaucracy and administration associated with SRB, from the projectdeliverer’s perspective, although this is not more clearly specified.


There are some stark contrasts in evaluators’ assessments of community engagement in the NorthWest SRB programme, perhaps reflecting the wide range of approaches that individual schemes tookin this area. Some stress the strength of community engagement at the beginning of a scheme, forexample in the setting of priorities and identification of project ideas. Others view the success ashaving come from community representatives on the SRB Board, or through ongoing consultation withcommunity forums or similar communication structures. But rarely is all of this encompassed in asingle scheme.

While some schemes managed successfully to engage particularly hard-to-reach groups, such asBME communities and women, others struggled, for example with young people. In some cases,attempts by SRB schemes to engage communities have been regarded as rather tokenistic, forexample the complaint that engagement has not delivered any community control over a scheme’sdirection or activities.

Where it was offered, communities appear to have particularly welcomed the ‘Community Chest’ typeof project, which not only provided funds for them to control directly, but also helped to engage themwith the wider priorities and activities of SRB.

Strategic impact

A number of evaluations note that SRB had a strong catalytic effect on the process of town and citycentre regeneration. While not necessarily the most significant player, or the largest funder, SRB wasviewed as being a crucial element in driving the regeneration agenda in its locality, creating an agendafor change, and paving the way for downstream investment.

In terms of engagement, the community-level effects of SRB engagement have already beencommented on, but more widely, evidence suggests that SRB schemes – particularly at board level –encouraged joined-up action among services and agencies in a way that had not previously beencommon.


Leverage

Table 7.18 shows leverage ratios for the regional SRB programme by Round, for those evaluationswhere evidence of leverage existed. Round 3 demonstrated the greatest amount of total leverage (1 :5.9). However, the volume of private sector funding attracted rose significantly over the four Rounds,and was considerably higher in Rounds 5 and 6 than in the two earlier rounds.

Table 7.18: Leverage in the North West Region (£ million)

SRB Round SRB spend(actual)

Private sectorfunding

Public sectorfunding

Leverage ratio

Round 3 46.0 45.0 225.7 £1 : £5.90

Round 4 14.0 14.0 12.6 £1 : £1.90

Round 5 145.5 145.4 124.4 £1 : £1.90

Round 6 105.5 103.7 138.0 £1 : £2.30

Total 311.0 308.1 500.7 £1 : £2.60

Source: NWDA evaluation evidence


Judgements about legacy and sustainability are difficult, as evaluations tended to happen before ascheme’s end, and often at a time when the scheme’s future was still under consideration by partners.Some schemes argued that sustainability discussions had to be put on hold until the end of schemes’existence because they lacked capacity to devote time to a future strategy. This contrasts with theschemes that were more confident about life after SRB, which had devoted thinking and planning tolegacy and sustainability from the mid-term of the scheme’s existence.

Due to the timings, therefore, a lot of comment in the evaluations about sustainability is rather vagueand delivered in general terms. However, at the strategic level, it is clear that some SRB boards andpartnerships continued to operate in other guises, such as developing into a Local StrategicPartnership. At the project level, schemes were more confident about the longer-term impact andsustainability of physical improvements (although issues of maintenance and upkeep were raised),than revenue activities. In the case of revenue projects, some schemes were planning (or hoping) thatthey could be sustained through other regeneration streams, such as the Neighbourhood RenewalFund, the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative or Housing Market Renewal. However, specific evidenceof this happening was limited.

As with sustainability, a number of evaluations made positive noises about mainstreaming projects,but few concrete examples were stated. Those that were identified include preventative healthprojects, welfare/job support activities and posts such as town wardens.

Value for money




The evaluations note a range of strengths from the region’s SRB schemes. The more commonresponses tend to identify process issues, such as the extent of community involvement and SRB’sbottom-up approach, strong project selection, effective management and good output/leverageperformance. In addition, schemes seem to have been particularly good at engaging and working withyoung people.

Weaknesses have already been identified to a great extent. These run through the programmelifecycle, from the inadequacies of many scheme baselines, through to the lack of consideration ofongoing sustainability. The lack of engagement of the private sector is a common weakness identifiedin schemes. In a few cases, SRB is criticised for not having delivered a sufficiently coherentprogramme of activity, rather a collection of diffuse projects which has left resource spread too thinly.

Conclusions

The general consensus of evaluators is that the majority of the schemes we have reviewed have beeneither partially or largely successful. This view stems from the meeting, and in some cases, substantialexceeding of RDA core, other economic and other non-economic outputs. Only one core RDA outputslightly underperformed against forecasts, with performance against other economic outputsexceeding expectations in 16 out of 23 output areas.

When leverage is factored in, there are six schemes which have invested over £20 million each withinthe region. The largest two schemes, Count Me In (St. Helens) and Integrating and SustainingCommunities (Salford), are worth just under a quarter of a billion pounds. A substantial number ofoutputs have been delivered by a relatively small number of large schemes. Leverage was at itshighest in Round 3, with a leverage ratio of 1 : 5.9, against an average of 1 : 2.6 across all rounds.

Partnership development, community development, governance and programme management areconsidered to have been effective, although the levels of community and private sector engagementdo vary considerably across schemes. Whilst the views regarding the sustainability of SRB schemesare more mixed, SRB investment appears to have been a catalyst for a wide range of post-SRBactivity, including sub-regional partnership working in some cases.

Although largely positive, these conclusions need to be weighed against the fact that we were onlyable to source 50 evaluations out of an official total of 97 SRB schemes in the region.


8 The impact of SRB in theSouth East

Introduction

This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the SouthEast region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this reportand includes:

background information on the South East region;








Background to the South East region

The South East region encompasses 19 county and unitary authorities and 55 districts, stretching inan arc around London from Thanet in the south-east to the New Forest in the south-west and toAylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes in the north-west. It covers the counties of Berkshire,Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, East Sussex and WestSussex.

Whilst it is without a single dominant urban centre, the region is home to two urban areas withpopulations of around 250,000 (Medway and Brighton and Hove) and five urban areas withpopulations of greater than 100,000. The South East is home to over eight million people (in somethree million households) and the population is expected to increase by more than 10% between 2005and 2021.

With a total output of around £177 billion in 2006, the South East is the second largest regionaleconomy within the UK. The South East’s share of the UK’s output has increased from 13.2% in 1989to 15.7% in 2006.

23Between 1997 and 2006 Gross Value Added (GVA) grew in the South East by

around 6% per year on average, slightly above the national average. During this period the economywas characterised by growth in productivity, as well as the highest economic activity and employment

23 Office of National Statistics website: see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gva1207.pdf


rates and the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Real growth in the region slowed in both2004 and 2005, with real output (GVA) expanding by 2.8% in 2004 (below the national average) and2.1% in 2005 (marginally above the national average)

24. Growth was constrained by the slowdown in

the consumer sector and the weaknesses in the tourism sector, public services and construction.During this period the region experienced a decrease in employment rates and an increase inunemployment rates – the latter reaching 4.7% by late 2005.

High levels of GVA per head (approximately £19,000) mask significant sub-regional disparities. Inparticular, parts of the coastal fringe of the region perform significantly below regional and nationalaverages.


25in England are in the South East region, which indicates

that the South East region is one of the least deprived regions in the country. However, this picture ofrelative affluence masks significant sub-regional variations, as outlined in Table 8.1:

Table 8.1: SRB deprivation figures for sub-regions within SEEDA

Sub-region Number of SOAs in the

sub-region in bottom


% of SOAs in the sub-

region as a whole

% of regional total in

lowest IMD quartile

nationally

Hampshire & Isle of Wight 113 22% 28%

Kent and Medway 118 20% 29%

Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire &

Buckinghamshire (MKOB)

40 16% 10%

Surrey and Berkshire 23 23% 6%

Sussex 108 19% 27%

Total 402 100% 100%


Table 8.1 illustrates that deprivation within the South East region is more concentrated and prevalentin the Kent and Medway, Hampshire & Isle of Wight and Sussex sub-regions, which account for 61%of the region’s SOAs in total but 84% of the region’s SOAs in the bottom IMD quartile nationally. Just16% of the South East region’s SOAs in the bottom IMD quartile nationally are in the Milton Keynes,Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire (MKOB) and Surrey and Berkshire sub-regions.

Regional context

Table 8.2 provides an overview of the SRB programme in the region, outlining the number andproportion of schemes that took place in each SRB round and providing a comparison with thenational picture.

24 RES Annual Monitoring Report October 1, 2007: see http://www.seeda.co.uk/res/25 See 5 for more detail on Super Output Areas


Table 8.2: Number of SRB schemes in the South East Region

SRB Round Number of SRB schemes in the

region (% of regional total)

Number of SRB schemes nationally

(% of total schemes nationally)

Round 1 19 (16%) 201 (20%)

Round 2 24 (20%) 172 (17%)

Round 3 19 (16%) 182 (18%)

Round 4 14 (12%) 121 (12%)

Round 5 24 (20%) 163 (16%)

Round 6 21 (17%) 189 (18%)

Overall total 121 (100%) 1,028 (100%)

Rounds 3-6 78 (64%) 655 (64%)

Source: CLG

Across the six Rounds of SRB 121 schemes were funded in the South East region, of which 78 tookplace in Rounds 3 to 6. The allocation of schemes between Rounds generally mirrored the nationalpicture and was consistent across most Rounds, with Rounds 2 and 5 seeing the highest number ofschemes. The reduced number of schemes in Round 4 is consistent with the national picture.

SRB expenditure


Table 8.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure

SRB Round SRB expenditure (£m) % of region’s total

SRB expenditure

% of national SRB

Round expenditure

Round 1 31.8 8.3% 2.9%

Round 2 78.6 20.6% 6.9%

Round 3 108.0 28.3% 11.6%

Round 4 23.0 6.0% 7.2%

Round 5 70.4 18.4% 6.8%

Round 6 70.0 18.3% 5.7%

Overall total 381.8 100.0% 6.6%

Rounds 3-6 271.4 71.1% 7.7%

Source: CLG

The South East region received £381.8 million of SRB funding over the six Rounds, of which £271.4million was spent during Rounds 3 to 6 of the programme. Over the six Rounds, SRB spending in theSouth East averaged £64 million per Round, although there were significant fluctuations – from a lowof £23 million in Round 4 to a high of £108 million in Round 3. Overall, SEEDA received 6.6% of totalSRB funding.


The proportion of national expenditure received by the South East in Rounds 2, 4, 5 and 6 wasroughly in line with the average proportion the region received overall. Rounds 1 and 3 stand out asbeing untypical of the overall picture in the South East – in Round 3 the South East region received11.6% of overall funding but in Round 1, the South East received just 2.9% of the national total.

Table 8.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of SEEDA’s budgeted expenditure per SRB round.

Table 8.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per round, per sub-region (£ million)


Hampshire & Isle of

Wight

21.2 3.9 35.2 25.8 86.2

Kent and Medway 19.1 10.3 21.8 24.3 75.6

Milton Keynes,

Oxfordshire &

Buckinghamshire

(MKOB)

5.7 1.6 5.0 1.8 14.1

Surrey and Berkshire 10.6 3.4 3.2 0.1 17.3

Sussex 51.4 3.8 4.8 17.1 77.2

Region-wide 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.1

Totals 108.0 23.0 70.4 70.0 271.4


The South East region received over £270 million between Rounds 3 and 6. Expenditure wasdominated by three sub-regions – Hampshire & Isle of Wight (£86.2 million), Sussex (£77.2 million)and Kent & Medway (£75.6 million). A very small proportion of the South East’s SRB spend was in theSurrey and Berkshire or MKOB sub-regions. These expenditure figures correspond fairly closely to theproportion of SOAs these sub-regions have in the lowest IMD quartile nationally, as outlined in Table8.1.

Expenditure was significantly lower across all sub-regions in Round 4, in line with the national picture.That aside, spending was relatively stable in most sub-regions across most Rounds. Sussex andSurrey & Berkshire were notable exceptions to this, receiving 67% and 61% of their total SRBexpenditure in Round 3 respectively.

Allocating expenditure between SEEDA sub-regions has been difficult at times. We received severalevaluations that cut across more than one of SEEDA’s sub-regions, and we have had to make ajudgement about which sub-region we allocated that scheme’s expenditure (and outputs) to. Wereceived evaluation evidence for three schemes (Building For The Future In The Thames Valley, EarlyYears Intervention, Oxford and Slough and Thames Valley Social Enterprise) that cut across theMKOB and Surrey & Berkshire sub-regions. All the schemes have been allocated to the MKOB sub-region, as that was the sub-region that the accountable body belonged to. Although the schemes weresmall, with a combined expenditure of £2.4 million, it is worth noting that this allocation of schemes tothe MKOB sub-region means we are slightly overstating the expenditure in that sub-region, andtherefore slightly understating expenditure in the Surrey & Berkshire sub-region. This will also be trueof outputs.

There were three small region-wide schemes – Network for the Regeneration of Communities in SouthEast England (Round 5), The Community Development and Training Partnership, South East Region(Round 6) and Rural Towns – Rural Life, South East Rural Market Towns (Round 6), which had acombined budgeted SRB expenditure of £1.1 million.

Table 8.5 outlines actual SRB expenditure by SEEDA between 2002/03 and 2006/07, which is the


‘relevant expenditure’ period in the overall RDA impact evaluation.



2002/03 37.4

2003/04 41.1

2004/05 23.1

2005/06 20.3

2006/07 6.9

Overall total 128.8

Source: SEEDA

SEEDA’s relevant expenditure total for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is £577million, meaning that SRB accounts for 22.3% of SEEDA’s expenditure in the overall RDA impactevaluation.

It is important to remember that the figures in Table 8.5 do not include all the spend on the SRBschemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that we have evaluated, as some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07. However, all the Rounds 3 to 6 outputs are includedin the meta-evaluation, which means we have to be very careful when comparing inputs with outputs.

Evidence gathering

Evaluation evidence


We received evaluation evidence for 49 out of the 78 Round 3 to 6 SRB schemes that took place inthe South East region. Of these, 45 contained useful evidence – some form of evaluation report withfinal (or assumed final) output and expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check forconsistency with other sources. Appendix B contains a list of all the schemes where evaluation reportswere reviewed.

SEEDA made strenuous efforts to source as many reports as they could. They contacted a range oforganisations to try to locate reports – from their own area teams through to partner agencies, localauthorities and sometimes even the evaluation consultancies that had carried out the original work.

The reports that we reviewed varied widely in format, structure, breadth and quality. Some evaluationscombined outputs across more than one scheme, which made assessing the performance of someindividual schemes difficult. Other evaluations provided output information for only a sample ofprojects within a scheme, which means that the outputs of some schemes may be under-reported.Many of the evaluations had taken place before the end of the scheme and therefore only containedoutputs up to a particular stage in the scheme. Where those reports provided output information to aparticular point in the scheme, rather than the end of the scheme, we decided to treat those outputs asfinal outputs, rather than project the results forward. To extrapolate would have assumed that pastperformance would be exactly mirrored by future performance, which is rarely, if ever, the case. Wealso decided to disregard anticipated output figures, as these can often over-estimate the amount thatwill be achieved in the remainder of a scheme. The implication of this is that our analysis may


understate the actual outputs achieved by some schemes.



SRB

Round

Total number

of SRB

schemes

Number of

schemes with

usable evidence

received

Percentage of

schemes for

that Round

Percentage of

budgeted

expenditure for

that Round

Amount of

Expenditure for

that Round

Round 3 19 9 47% 51% 55.7

Round 4 14 5 36% 45% 10.5

Round 5 24 17 71% 83% 58.8

Round 6 21 14 67% 98% 68.5

Total 78 45 58% 71% 193.5

Source: PwC. Expenditure in this table refers to forecast SRB expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from CLG data.

As Table 8.6 illustrates, we received usable evaluation evidence for this meta-evaluation covering 71%of Rounds 3 to 6 expenditure. The amount of evaluation evidence received in expenditure terms rosesignificantly for later Rounds, from 45% in Round 4 to 98% in Round 6. This significantly highercoverage for Round 6 may reflect the increased likelihood of tracing the most recently-undertakenevaluations.

SEEDA managed to locate three large evaluations (Education Achievement Programme - Portsmouthand South East Hampshire; Regenerating the Heart of Portsmouth; and Connecting Paulsgrove andWymering, Portsmouth) right at the very end of this meta-evaluation process, some considerable timeafter the deadline for receiving evidence had passed. We have included that evidence in this reportwhere it was possible to do so, in the very limited time we had available to incorporate it.



SRB

Round

Number of

schemes

under £1m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Number of

schemes

£1m - £3m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Number of

schemes

above £3m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Round 3 2 0 7 3 10 7

Round 4 4 2 9 5 1 1

Round 5 4 1 16 13 4 3

Round 6 9 2 5 5 7 7

Total 19 5 37 26 22 18

Source: PwC. Expenditure categories relate to SRB money only

As illustrated in Table 8.7, we received very few evaluations for small schemes (under £1 million). Thebest proportion of evaluations received was in the highest expenditure category (above £3 million).


The fact that both the number and the percentage of evaluations received was higher for largerschemes may reflect the fact that they were more likely to undertake end of scheme evaluations,despite this being a requirement for all schemes. Similarly, this may also reflect a lower evaluationbudget for the schemes under £1 million, or possibly an inclination to not evaluate smaller schemes.






and forecast


Evaluations with

gross outputs

included

Evaluations with

net outputs

included

Round 3 10 6 9 0

Round 4 8 4 5 0

Round 5 17 11 17 0

Round 6 14 10 14 3

Total 49 31 45 3

Source: PwC

As shown in Table 8.8, approximately two-thirds of the evaluations received contained forecast andactual expenditure. About 90% contained some form of gross output information, which has formedthe backbone of the meta-evaluation. However, only three of the evaluations we reviewed containedan assessment of net outputs. All were limited in the output categories covered and all had usednational methodologies to calculate net outputs – two (the Southampton Community Futures andThanet Horizons schemes) had used the SRB national evaluation methodology and one (the Hastingsand St Leonards scheme) had used the methodology from the New Deal for Communities evaluation.

The limited amount of relevant information on additionality means that we will need to apply theadditionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to SEEDA’s gross SRB outputs, in orderto estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, thisapproach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the bestoption available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4,which explains the meta-evaluation’s approach and methodology.



We spoke to a mixture of people, both internal to SEEDA and amongst external partners, to try tounderstand more about SEEDA’s overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to thedelivery of individual projects and schemes. Who we spoke to was entirely at the discretion of the RDA– the six stakeholders were nominated by the RDA, as the people they believed would be the mosthelpful to us in this task. A full list of stakeholder consultees can be found at Appendix C.

The stakeholder consultations have been successful and have proved very beneficial in augmentingthe evaluation evidence we have reviewed.


Gross outputs




Core RDA outputs


Table 8.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the South EastRegion. These outputs account for £193.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 71% of the £271.4 milliontotal budgeted SRB spend.

Table 8.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the South East Region

Output category Hampshire &

Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 549 704 88 94 860 2,295


safeguarded

198 488 72 0 602 1,360


obtaining qualifications

4834 8645 3253 1371 4125 22,228


supported surviving 52 weeks

38 37 24 0 56 155

6B Land improved / reclaimed

for development (Ha)

1 8 0 0 165 174



7 28 23 0 10 68

Source: PwC analysis, based on SEEDA evaluation evidence

The evaluation evidence received indicates that 2,295 gross jobs were created, the majority of whichwere in the Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Sussex and Kent & Medway sub-regions. More than 1,300 jobswere safeguarded, mostly in Sussex and Kent & Medway. The Adur Industry First scheme in Sussex,which focused on increasing business competitiveness, was a key contributor to this total.

More than 22,000 people trained obtained qualifications. This was relatively evenly spread across thesub-regions, although Kent & Medway accounted for the highest sub-regional total. One hundred and


seventy-five hectares of land was improved, almost all of which was in Sussex as a result of theTurning the Tide: A Bright Coastal Future scheme.

The three sub-regions with the highest levels of deprivation and the most SRB funding in the region –Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Kent & Medway and Sussex – achieved the majority of the outputs. Of theother sub-regions, it is notable that we have very few recorded core outputs for Surrey & Berkshire.This indicates the lack of evidence we received for that sub-region but is also partly the result of ourallocating three cross-boundary schemes to the MKOB sub-region, which means that Surrey &Berkshire has a slight under-reporting of outputs and MKOB has a slight over-reporting of outputs.



Table 8.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe South East Region. These outputs account for £193.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 71% of the£271.4 million total budgeted SRB spend.

Table 8.10: Gross ‘other economic’ outputs in the South East Region


Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey &

Berkshire

Sussex Total


jobs (person weeks) 22831 10295 40 0 11140 44,306



attainment 44456 89563 6750 5888 34499 181,156



training advice 2945 1758 314 1096 697 6,810

1E Number of training weeks 29994 43025 7316 31734 21815 133,884


gaining jobs 296 596 91 135 262 1,380


unemployed 172 448 51 87 95 853


employment 63 142 32 115 162 514


unemployed 28 71 2 0 97 198

1I (i) Number from


who gain job 605 198 30 101 316 1,250




development 131768 106117 19851 26016 67834 351,586




improve student performance 359 826 127 40 2632 3,984

1K (ii) Number of students in 299 16535 408 189 34672 52,103



Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey &

Berkshire

Sussex Total




business 59 401 1 0 419 880


start-ups 322 154 78 0 149 703


floorspace improved (m2) 38424 15839 351 0 27508 82,122


commercial floorspace (m2) 8306 3381 1040 0 21008 33,735


supported 153 120 73 12 123 481

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 38 16 0 0 34 88



SRB-assisted activities 503 1519 932 287 1760 5,001

6A Land improved / reclaimed

for open space (Ha) 61 90 3 9 1 164


into use 181 73 10 0 436 700

6D (i) Roads built (km) 0 1 0 0 3 4

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 8 2 1 0 17 28


The SEEDA SRB programme delivered a range of other gross economic outputs. Over 44,000 personweeks of construction jobs were created, with half of these being generated in Hampshire & Isle ofWight, stemming largely from the Regenerating the Heart of Portsmouth and Connecting Paulsgrove &Wymering schemes.

1,250 people from disadvantaged groups targeted by the SRB programme gained a job. A quarter ofthese were as a result of the Southampton Community Futures scheme. Almost 4,000 employersparticipated in collaborative projects with educational institutions to improve student performance and52,103 students entered into collaborative projects at the end of the SRB programme. Nearly a third ofthis total was attributable to the Pooling Our Resources scheme in Sussex.

Over 33,000 m2

of business and commercial floorspace was improved as a result of the SRBprogramme, of which more than half was a result of the Adur Industry First scheme in Sussex.

In terms of environmental improvements, 700 buildings were brought back into use, two-thirds ofwhich were attributed to the Littlehampton 2000 scheme. Nearly half the 28 kilometres of roadimprovements in the region were also a result of this scheme.

As with core outputs, the majority of outputs were in Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Kent and Medway andSussex, although Surrey & Berkshire was responsible for a quarter of the training weeks achieved,largely through the Nai Roshni scheme in Slough. This scheme spanned three SRB rounds and wasfocused on widening youth opportunities.




Table 8.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemesin the South East Region. These outputs account for £193.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 71% of the£271.4 million total budgeted SRB spend.

Table 8.11: Gross ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the South East Region


Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total


completed 0 0 0 140 148 288


improved 1221 709 11 0 415 2,356


dwellings completed 0 0 0 0 167 167


dwellings improved 807 151 435 0 1633 3,026


association dwellings completed 33 28 0 0 28 89


association dwellings improved 0 16 92 0 0 108


management organisation 0 0 0 0 0 0


community safety initiatives 145846 211161 16684 25650 45507 444,848

5A (ii) Aged over 60 16450 33724 2687 3794 4759 61,414

5A (iii) Females 57023 51826 8760 10320 7499 135,428


upgraded security 516 2760 231 146 1038 4,691


buildings with upgraded security 84 133 38 0 520 775


initiatives 174 700 94 114 56 1,138


prevention initiatives 376 2283 78 30 632 3,399




measures 4 7 3 0 9502 9,516

6F Number of waste

management/recycling schemes 30 11 1 0 1 43


facilities 60952 58467 3068 3146 96080 221,713



Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total


sports facilities 81572 137950 3964 5606 8718 237,810


cultural facilities 100880 346369 17702 7793 21262 494,006


facilities 23 25 4 18 4 74


facilities 21 126 3 0 5 155


facilities 17 132 35 0 6 190


health facilities 12877 7689 978 0 10270 31,814






improved 8 15 16 0 4 43


improved 16 65 6 0 5 92


improved 101 88 17 0 5 211


organisations supported 954 2985 606 460 1888 6,893




in voluntary work 5306 13644 2443 1003 7832 30,228


volunteering schemes 32 46 20 17 70 185


provided 619 4764 298 0 96 5,777


In terms of housing, the evaluation evidence shows that 288 private dwellings were completed –roughly half each through the Nai Roshni and Littlehampton 2000 schemes. Local authority dwellingswere completed only in Sussex and that sub-region was also responsible for more than half of thelocal authority dwellings improved. The majority of these housing-related outputs in Sussex resultedfrom the Hailsham East Area Renewal scheme, which had housing as one of its key interventionareas.


The Kent and Medway sub-region is responsible for 50% or more of many of the non-economicoutputs achieved. These are mainly attributable to the combined Dover Urban Regeneration and EastKent Coalfield Regeneration scheme, which was designed to empower local communities by engagingthem in initiatives designed to combat social exclusion, and the Believing in Folkestone scheme, whichhad social inclusion and tackling crime and drug abuse as its key target areas.

Although many of the outputs are spread throughout the sub-regions, some sub-regional dominancestands out. The Hampshire & Isle of Wight and Kent and Medway sub-regions accounted for nearly80% of the people benefiting from community safety initiatives; the MKOB sub-region accounted foralmost 90% of the outputs in the housing association dwellings improved category, which was entirelyattributable to the Barton Community Regeneration scheme.



Table 8.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the South East Region








Source: SRB evaluation evidence received from SEEDA

The evaluation evidence suggests that the region has had a mixed performance in meeting coreoutput targets, with two above target and four below. Although jobs created was 18% above its target,jobs safeguarded was 36% below. The survival rate of supported businesses was also lower thanexpected, achieving two-thirds of target. Land reclamation and community enterprise start-ups bothachieved roughly half of their targets. The best performance was for the number of people trained whoobtained qualifications, which exceeded its target by 20%.


Table 8.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the South EastRegion














social development 205%


institutions to improve student performance 155%




2B (i) New business/commercial floorspace (m2) 135%

2B (ii) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2) 59%




activities 155%






Most of these other economic outputs performed well, achieving close to or above-target performance.Only a few missed their targets, of which the lowest performance was in land improved/reclaimed foropen space (5%), which is consistent with the under-performance of land improved/reclaimed fordevelopment, as illustrated in Table 8.12. The ‘Believing in Folkestone’ scheme was a key under-performer here, achieving 3% and 1% of its output targets respectively in Rounds 3 and 4. Job-relatedoutputs were also generally below target. The strongest performances were in bringing buildings backinto use (359% of target achieved) and in the number of students participating in collaborativeprojects, where 303% of the target was achieved.









































Almost all non-economic outputs performed very well, with many comfortably exceeding their targets.Performance in terms of improving and using new community facilities was strong, as wasperformance in terms of supporting the community and voluntary sectors and in most categoriesrelated to community safety.

For some of these categories we received very few pieces of evaluation evidence, which has made itharder to provide a robust assessment of performance to target. For example, we received only twosets of output data for private dwellings completed and only three sets of output data with regard tohousing association dwellings improved. For dwellings in tenant management organisation, only one


output data set was available.

The table shows an over-achievement in traffic calming measures of 28,824%. This is largelyattributable to the Littlehampton 2000 scheme, where an output of 9,501 was achieved against atarget of 1. The scheme also reported very large over-performance in a number of other outputcategories. The evaluation report for the scheme mentions the possibility of shortcomings in outputrecording and it would appear that the recorded results of this scheme should be treated with caution.







Net outputs

Core RDA outputs

Applying the additionality coefficients to SEEDA’s gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides aview of the net core RDA outputs for the SRB programme in the South East Region, as illustrated inTable 8.15.

Table 8.15: Net core RDA outputs in the South East Region


Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 225 289 36 39 352 941


safeguarded

85 210 31 0 259 585

1C Number of people trained 2707 4841 1822 768 2310 12,448



Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total



supported surviving 52 weeks

17 16 11 0 25 68

6B Land improved / reclaimed

for development (Ha)

1 4 0 0 81 86



5 22 18 0 8 53

Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG/University of Cambridge data and SEEDA evaluation evidence

Table 8.15 shows that 941 net jobs were created in the South East region as a result of the SRBprogramme and a further 585 were safeguarded. The South East’s SRB programme also resulted inmore than 12,000 net people obtaining qualifications, in 68 net new businesses surviving for a yearafter receiving business support, in 86 hectares of land being improved or reclaimed for developmentand in the establishment of 53 community enterprise start-ups.


Table 8.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in theSouth East Region.

Table 8.16: Net ‘other economic’ outputs in the South East Region


Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total


jobs (person weeks) 9589 4324 17 0 4679 18,609



attainment 23561 47468 3578 3121 18284 96,012



training advice 1826 1090 195 680 432 4,222

1E Number of training weeks 10798 15489 2634 11424 7853 48,198


trained gaining jobs 148 298 46 68 131 690


unemployed 83 215 24 42 46 409


employment 36 81 18 66 92 293


unemployed 16 40 1 0 54 111

1I (i) Number from


who gain job 369 121 18 62 193 763




development 61931 49875 9330 12228 31882 165,245



Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total




improve student performance 215 496 76 24 1579 2,390


collaborative projects 147 8102 200 93 16989 25,530



business 36 245 1 0 256 537


start-ups 135 65 33 0 63 295

2B (i) Business / commercial

floorspace improved (m2) 13833 5702 126 0 9903 29,564


commercial floorspace (m2) 3738 1521 468 0 9454 15,181


supported 67 53 32 5 54 212

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 17 7 0 0 16 40



SRB-assisted activities 216 653 401 123 757 2,150

6A Land improved/reclaimed

for open space (Ha) 47 68 2 7 1 125


into use 96 39 5 0 231 371

6D (i) Roads built (km) 0 1 0 0 1 2

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 6 2 1 0 13 22


As per Table 8.15, applying the gross to net metrics to the various output categories reduces thelevels of ‘claimable’ outputs for all categories. However, again, because the same metrics are appliedequally across all the sub-regions there is no change in the relative proportions of outputs the differentsub-regions contribute to overall programme performance.


Table 8.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by the SRBprogramme in the South East Region.

Table 8.17: Net ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the South East Region


Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total


dwellings completed 0 0 0 59 62 121


dwellings improved 574 333 5 0 195 1,107



Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total


authority dwellings

completed 0 0 0 0 0 0


authority dwellings improved 404 76 218 0 817 1,513



completed 15 13 0 0 13 40



improved 0 8 46 0 0 54


tenant management

organisation 0 0 0 0 0 0


community safety initiatives 75840 109804 8676 13338 23664 231,321

5A (ii) Aged over 60 8061 16525 1317 1859 2332 30,093

5A (iii) Females 26801 24358 4117 4850 3524 63,651

5B (i) Number of dwellings

with upgraded security 253 1352 113 72 509 2,299

5B (ii) Number of

commercial buildings with

upgraded security 47 74 21 0 291 434


safety initiatives 89 357 48 58 29 580



5D (ii) Number attending

crime prevention initiatives 16909 8788 2312 9558 7887 45,453


measures 2 3 1 0 4466 4,473

6F Number of waste


schemes 23 8 1 0 1 33


health facilities 38400 36834 1933 1982 60530 139,679






health facilities 15 16 3 12 3 48


facilities 13 78 2 0 3 96



Isle of Wight

Kent and

Medway

MKOB Surrey and

Berkshire

Sussex Total

7A (vi) Number of new

cultural facilities 12 90 24 0 4 130

7B (i) Number using

improved health facilities 8113 4844 616 0 6470 20,043


improved sports facilities 2282 67951 544 0 5785 76,562


improved cultural facilities 42255 71054 938 0 360 114,607


facilities improved 4 8 8 0 2 22










involved in voluntary work 3024 7777 1393 572 4464 17,230


volunteering schemes 21 30 13 11 46 120


places provided 310 2382 149 0 48 2,889


As per Tables 8.15 and 8.16, applying the gross to net metrics to the various output categoriesreduces the levels of “claimable” outputs for all categories. However, again, because the same metricsare applied equally across all the sub-regions there is no change in the relative proportions of outputsthe different sub-regions contribute to overall programme performance.

Other outputs

Our review of SEEDA’s SRB evaluation evidence uncovered a range of additional outputs outside ofthe official list of sixty-three outputs. A number of other outputs were found in the evaluation reports,covering a range of additional economic and non-economic objectives. Examples of some of the largeradditional outputs recorded in the evaluation evidence include:

number of local people benefiting from an improved environment (60,145)

number of people attending Lifelong Learning Advice Sessions (20,889)

number of learning opportunities between 3 and 30 hours (20,348)

number of young people attending Lifelong Learning Advice Sessions (10,332)

number of residents receiving advice, enabling them to apply for jobs or further education (3,603)

number of capacity building initiatives carried out (3,408)


number of individuals receiving ICT training (3,355)

number of dwellings benefiting from measures intended to reduce maintenance or running costs(2,119)

number of adults receiving basic skills training (1,651)


Assessment of outcomes and impacts was very patchy throughout the evaluation evidence wereviewed and in many cases little or no mention of long-term impacts was made.

To measure outcomes and impacts, most evaluation reports used baselines (where available) to trackchanges across SRB areas over the lifetime of the programme. The Hailsham East Area Renewalscheme resulted in 31% of 17 year-olds attending full-time education and training at the end of thescheme, compared to 24% at the beginning. There was also a Community Centre built for the areaand a consequent 700% increase in the number of people accessing community facilities. Attendanceat college increased by 2% during the scheme and the number of incidents of domestic abuse fell from400 to 137.

In the Spotlight on Bletchley scheme, a number of projects aimed to physically improve the area andpeople’s perceptions of it. By the end of the scheme the number of racial incidents in the area haddecreased, the level of reporting of incidents had increased and the police and local schools hadbecome active in targeting race-related crimes. Youth participation also improved significantly throughvarious sports activities, heritage projects and confidence-building exercises that were developed inthe scheme.

The Adur Industry First scheme resulted in some significant local impacts – the number ofunemployment claimants fell by 70%, with the percentage of males seeking craft or manualemployment down from 50% of Adur’s total unemployed to 21%. At the end of the scheme, Adur'sresidents’ mean weekly pay was higher than the Sussex average, whereas at the beginning it was16% below. And at the beginning of the scheme Adur had five of the 20 most multiply-deprived wardsin West Sussex; at the end it had none.

The Nai Roshni scheme resulted in a 61% increase in the participation in adult education by peoplefrom ethnic minority communities. The East Reading scheme provided 46 affordable homes to thearea and a nursery.

One of the weaknesses of the SRB programme which came out in stakeholder consultations was thatthe schemes were generally more focused on outputs rather than outcomes, which meant that someschemes occasionally lacked a strategic focus.


The evaluation evidence we reviewed intimated that partnership working in the region was generallygood, though not without its problems. The Gateways to Community Success and North Kent Gatewayto Opportunity schemes showed evidence of partner involvement at operational level, which helped tomanage the process of programme implementation. Partnership processes and procedures were saidto be effective and reasonable controls were maintained in the overall administration of the scheme,with clear lines of responsibility.

The partnership formed in the Community-Based Capacity Building in Blackbird Leys scheme wascredited with incorporating a very local perspective into the planning of initiatives taken within the


scheme, such as a neighbourhood nursery and a new health centre. In the Enterprising Leigh Parkscheme, the partnership board incorporated the majority of key stakeholders and organisations. Thiswas considered to have helped increase the synergy between the scheme and other local initiativesand strategies.

The partnership that was formed to administer the East Oxford Action scheme was praised in thescheme’s evaluation for their involvement at both strategy formulation and operational levels. Whenthe scheme was drawing to a close the partnership formed a new organisation, East Oxford ActionLimited, to take over the programme of work at the end of SRB.


The broad consensus from the evaluation evidence is that schemes were generally well managed,with committed and effective programme managers in place. Most evaluations commented that themanagers ensured that schemes were focused in line with community needs.

Effective management was cited as the key factor in turning the Community-Based Capacity Buildingin Blackbird Leys scheme into a success, when at first it had been performing less well. The evaluationnotes that the programme manager successfully affected the restructuring of the scheme, forged thepartnerships that led to a participatory learning approach, supported innovative project delivery andturned the Board into a strategic partnership that could pick up on funding opportunities and bring alocal perspective to activities.

The evaluation of the East Oxford Action scheme also mentions the leadership of the programmemanager as being crucial to the success of the scheme. With the Adur Industry First scheme, the“vigorous, non-bureaucratic” style of management was given credit for the active engagement ofprivate business members.

However, the performance of the programme governance and management functions was not alwaysgood. In the Gateways to Community Success, Thames Gateway and North Kent Gateway toOpportunity schemes, the communication between the programme management team and the projectdelivery agents was considered to be a problem. In some instances programme managers found the“tight management” from SEEDA very frustrating and felt that this constrained progress. This wasmentioned in the evaluation of the Pooling Our Resources, Eastbourne scheme and was alsomentioned in our consultations with stakeholders.

Project appraisal processes were usually considered by evaluators to have been effective, withevaluations reporting a clear separation of roles and responsibilities and clear guidance in place. In acouple of schemes, the local community was involved in the appraisal process. In the Weacock &Rowner Compact, Gosport scheme, the appraisal process worked through the resident appraisalpanel, which was led by local residents from the communities of Rowner and Weacock. This enabledsignificant resident involvement at a decision-making level. The Spotlight on Bletchley schemereported strong community involvement in the management and development of the scheme. It alsohad a well-designed and executed system for the development and appraisal of individual projects,which involved local people at each stage of the process.

While most of the schemes generally reported good and robust monitoring systems, some evaluationscited onerous reporting systems and a lack of clarity in the way in which monitoring data was collectedas being weaknesses. The requirement to submit quarterly monitoring returns was felt by some to bean unnecessary pressure. Others found the changing performance measurements to be cumbersomeand confusing.



Evaluations generally reported good levels of community consultation in bid development, withinscheme activities, in the project appraisal system and in programme-level decision-making.

The Spotlight on Bletchley and Weacock & Rowner Compact, Gosport schemes referred to significantcommunity engagement in programme management, development and delivery. In the Weacock &Rowner scheme the Board was chaired by a local resident and the appraisal process was operatedthrough a resident appraisal panel. The East Oxford Action scheme is said to have had widespreadcommunity participation, which enabled local involvement from a wide range of community interests.

On the negative side, the evaluation of the Community-Based Capacity Building in Blackbird Leysscheme reported that insufficient one-to-one work had been done in supporting and mentoringcommunity activists, with a lack of support available to community groups with regard to training.

The stakeholder consultations indicated that community involvement and community membershipimproved with time and were generally good but not always representative.

Strategic impact

The SRB programme is considered to have helped to increase levels of partnership working andcreated valuable networks. East Oxford Action Limited is a community-led social enterprise that tookover the running of East Oxford Action SRB in 2003. It is led by a partnership that would arguably nothave come together in the first place, were it not for the original SRB scheme.

SRB has also been seen to have brought forward the timing of activities. For example, it is consideredthat the redevelopment of Littlehampton would have taken place without the Littlehampton 2000 SRBscheme, but that the redevelopment would have occurred over a significantly longer timescale. Somestakeholders also commented that areas such as Hastings and Slough benefited significantly fromSRB and perhaps would have gone into decline without it. SRB was considered by some stakeholdersto be responsible for kick-starting the regeneration of those areas and for bringing the right people andorganisations together.

Leverage

Stakeholders considered public sector funding to be easier to secure than private sector funding. Thisis borne out by Table 8.18, which considers the funding leveraged by the £114.6 million worth ofexpenditure it has been possible to obtain leverage information for. That £114.6 million of SRB spendleveraged a total of £240.5 million from public and private sector sources, at a ratio of £2.10 leveredfor every £1 of SRB expenditure.

Table 8.18: Leverage in the South East Region (£ million)

SRB Round SRB spend Private sector

funding

Public sector

funding

Actual leverage ratio

Round 3 18.51 35.31 27.17 £1 : £3.38

Round 4 5.20 3.41 12.22 £1 : £3.01

Round 5 26.10 15.81 40.31 £1 : £2.15

Round 6 64.81 37.08 69.22 £1 : £1.64

Total 114.62 91.61 148.92 £1 : £2.10

Source: SEEDA evaluation evidence


Stakeholders commented that private sector engagement often depended on how the objectives wererelayed to business. It was felt by some that the private sector needed to have an incentive to engagewith schemes, and few schemes were considered to be able to engage the private sector well.However, several schemes did have private sector representation on the partnership board and one ofthose schemes that did succeed was the Turning the Tide: A Bright Coastal Future scheme, whichsucceeded in engaging the active support of local businesses in the regeneration of the coastal strip.Private sector leverage in this scheme exceeded its target by more than 70%.


The picture with regard to the sustainability of SRB schemes is variable. Most schemes had exitstrategies or forward plans and sought to secure alternative funding to sustain their existence beyondthe end of SRB. Some were successful at this – the East Oxford Action scheme, which became theEast Oxford Action Limited social enterprise at the end of the scheme, is a notable example.

Evaluation evidence suggests that capital projects were more likely to have a life after SRB thanrevenue projects, which may not be entirely surprising. The Dover Urban Regeneration scheme andthe East Kent Coalfield Regeneration scheme are two examples of capital projects that continuedwhen SRB ended.

Many schemes did not survive the end of SRB. In some cases the scheme had run its course; inothers, a lack of succession planning was blamed on the inability to survive post-SRB. Thestakeholders we spoke to suggested that sustainability had been more achievable where relationshipshad been developed with local communities and local authorities, and where projects had beenproactive in securing funding post-SRB. An example given was the Nai Roshni scheme, which SloughBorough Council has continued to support since SRB finished.


The evaluation evidence we reviewed indicated that the SRB programme in the South East had arange of strengths. The broad consensus from the evaluation evidence is that schemes were generallywell managed, with committed and effective programme managers in place. Appraisal and monitoringsystems were generally considered to be robust. Partnership working and engagement levels seem tohave been generally good, and many schemes managed to secure the effective involvement of avariety of community, voluntary, public and private sector organisations. A range of positive outcomesand impacts were reported and the programme generally performed well against output targets.

Common criticisms levelled at the SRB programme in the South East were that it tried to do too much,by running too many schemes and projects, and that there was at times too much of a focus onoutputs as opposed to outcomes. Some scheme partnerships were accused of not beginning theirsuccession planning early enough, which prevented some schemes from continuing after SRB ended.A lack of staff continuity was considered to have affected the effective working of appraisal andmonitoring systems in some schemes.

Value for money

It would usually be standard practice to assess the value for money of the outputs generated by anevaluated programme, and to assess the contribution of economic outputs to gross value added(GVA). We have decided not to perform these calculations in the meta-evaluation, as we believe thediverse range of outputs in this programme and the difficulties in disaggregating economic and non-economic data make such a calculation inappropriate. More detail on this can be found in Section 4,


which explains the approach and methodology used in this meta-evaluation.

Conclusions

The SRB programme in the South East provided flexibility and long-term funding for localregeneration. Schemes were considered by evaluators to have largely had a good mix of projects andto have sought to address a wide range of community priorities and essential social objectives. Themajority of activity took place in the Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Kent & Medway and Sussex sub-regions, in line with their relatively higher levels of deprivation.

The programme generally performed well against performance targets and some notable economicand social impacts were achieved, ranging from reduced unemployment to increases in adulteducation, from a decline in racial incidents through to increased youth participation in sporting andheritage events.

Some schemes were successful in securing involvement from a variety of community, public andprivate sector sources, both strategically and operationally, and more than £2 of funding was leveredfor every £1 of SRB expenditure.

A common criticism of the SRB programme in the South East was that it tried to do too much withlimited funds, sometimes with only limited strategic coherence. There was also at times perceived tobe a focus on outputs, rather than outcomes.

Some partnerships survived post-SRB, particularly where they related to capital expenditure.However, many schemes did not survive the end of SRB, and it was felt that some schemes did notbegin their succession planning early enough, which prevented some schemes from continuing afterSRB ended.


9 The impact of SRB in theSouth West

Introduction

This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the SouthWest region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this reportand includes:

background information on the South West region;








Overview of the South West region

The South West is the largest region in England in terms of area. It includes 15 county and unitaryauthorities, extending from Gloucestershire and Wiltshire to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. SouthWest England is characterised by a largely rural landscape, a long coastline, relatively few major citiesand many small settlements. The major cities are the engines of the regional economy but the ruralnature of much of the region remains a dominant feature.

The region has experienced dynamic population growth in recent years from inward migration, with thecurrent population now standing at around 5 million people. The region has relatively high lifeexpectancy and a high proportion of 'healthy elderly' – older people with good health, disposableincome and spare time – which help shape the social, cultural and environmental activities in theregion.

The economic output of the region was around £89.5 billion in 2006, contributing around 8% tonational gross value added (GVA). GVA per capita was £17,467, which is just below the UK averageof £18,631.

26The South West economy is dominated by services, which account for 73% of regional

output and employment, while manufacturing accounts for 15% of the regional output. The short-termeffect of the strong inward migration has been that output and job growth in the region has been

26 ONS 2007, Regional GVA December 2007.


slower than population growth.

Within this relatively productive and wealthy region, the South West also has a few under performingsub-regions, such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. As such, the region has been eligible forEuropean Structural Funds through Objective One, Two and Three and receives significant financialsupport from the European Union. Overall, however, the South West has lower deprivation than mostEnglish regions.


27in England are in the South West region, which makes it

the second least-deprived region in the country, on this measurement. However, this relativeaffluence masks significant sub-regional variations, as outlined in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1: SRB deprivation figures for sub-regions within SWRDA





region as a whole


lowest IMD quartile

nationally

Bristol 89 8% 22%

Cornwall & Isles of Scilly 58 10% 15%

Devon 51 17% 13%

Dorset 46 14% 12%

Gloucestershire 31 11% 8%

Plymouth 56 5% 14%

Somerset 21 10% 5%

West of England 21 12% 5%

Wiltshire 24 12% 6%

Total 397 100% 100%


As Table 9.1 shows, the highest levels of deprivation in the region are in the urban centres of Bristoland Plymouth and the coastal counties of Devon, Dorset and Cornwall. In contrast, Gloucestershire,Somerset, West of England and Wiltshire have far fewer deprived areas on this measurement.

Regional context

Table 9.2 provides an overview of the SRB programme in the region, outlining the number andproportion of schemes that took place in each SRB round and providing a comparison with thenational picture.



Table 9.2: Number of SRB schemes in the South West Region


region (% of regional total)


(% of national total)

Round 1 10 (14%) 201 (20%)

Round 2 11 (15%) 172 (17%)

Round 3 14 (20%) 182 (18%)

Round 4 10 (14%) 121 (12%)

Round 5 8 (11%) 163 (16%)

Round 6 18 (25%) 189 (18%)

Overall total 71 (100%) 1028 (100%)

Rounds 3-6 50 (70%) 655 (64%)

Source: CLG

Table 9.2 shows the number of individual schemes by Round that took place in the South West andcontrasts this with the programme nationally. The SRB programme in the South West comprised atotal of 71 individual schemes, which accounted for 7% of the total number of schemes nationally.

Rounds 3 to 6 accounted for 70% of the total proportion of SRB schemes in the South West, slightlyhigher than the national figure of 64%. There is some variation in the number of SRB schemesbetween Rounds, from 8 schemes in Round 5 up to 18 in Round 6. The South West’s share of thetotal number of schemes was not consistent by Round, which is not unique to the South West.

SRB expenditure


Table 9.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure

SRB Round SRB expenditure (£m) % of region’s total

SRB expenditure

% of national SRB

Round expenditure

Round 1 33.9 20% 3%

Round 2 37.9 23% 3%

Round 3 23.1 14% 2%

Round 4 10.4 6% 3%

Round 5 30.9 18% 3%

Round 6 31.7 19% 3%


Rounds 3-6 96.1 57% 2%

Source: CLG


The South West received £167.9 million of funding over the six rounds of SRB, of which £96.1 millionoccurred in Rounds 3 to 6. This equates to 2% of national SRB funding, making the South West thesecond smallest recipient of SRB money across the regions, only slightly ahead of the East ofEngland.

Expenditure was not evenly split across the six Rounds of SRB. Rounds 1 and 2 received the highestproportion of funding, 43%, whilst Rounds 3 and 4 received a mere 20% combined. From examiningthe evaluation evidence and the guidance of the time, there does not seem to be an obviousexplanation for this variation.

Rounds 3 to 6 accounted for 57% of SRB regional expenditure whereas 70% of SRB schemes werecarried out, as shown in Table 9.2. This seems to suggest that the earlier Rounds funded largerschemes and the latter Rounds funded smaller schemes.

The fall in expenditure in Round 4 is consistent with the national picture. However, althoughexpenditure fell sharply, there was only a small fall in the number of SRB schemes. Between Rounds3 and 4 the number of schemes less than £1 million stayed the same but the number of schemesgreater than £1 million fell by half.

Table 9.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of SWRDA’s budgeted expenditure per SRB Round.

Table 9.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round, per sub-region (£ million)


Bristol 6.7 1.4 12.2 8.4 28.6

Cornwall 1.3 0.8 2.0 5.0 9.1

Devon 0.5 0.4 2.7 0.1 3.7

Dorset 1.4 0.2 0.2 1.5 3.4

Gloucestershire 1.3 2.9 1.8 2.2 8.2

Plymouth 5.1 3.6 11.8 8.4 28.9

Somerset 0.8 1.1 - 3.6 5.6

West of England 5.1 - 0.2 2.4 7.7

Wiltshire 0.8 - - 0.1 0.9

Totals 23.0 10.4 30.9 31.7 96.2


Bristol and Plymouth received the highest proportions of SRB funding in the South West, eachreceiving over £28 million. There is a big difference between the funding received by these two sub-regions and all the others. In contrast, Wiltshire, Devon and Dorset received a combined total of £8million.

Despite having 36% of the most deprived SOAs in the South West, Bristol and Plymouth received wellover half the total funding. Cornwall and Plymouth have very similar proportions of deprived areas inthe bottom IMD quartile but Plymouth received more than three times the amount of funding.

Table 9.5 outlines actual SRB expenditure by SWRDA between 2002/03 and 2006/07, which is the‘relevant expenditure’ period in the overall RDA impact evaluation.




2002/03 15.6

2003/04 12.3

2004/05 11.5

2005/06 9.6

2006/07 6.2

Overall total 55.2

Source: SWRDA

SWRDA’s total relevant expenditure for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is £428.2million, meaning that SRB accounts for 13% of SWRDA’s expenditure in the overall RDA impactevaluation.

The figures in Table 9.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that wehave evaluated, as some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from2002/03 to 2006/07. However, all the Rounds 3 to 6 outputs are included in the meta-evaluation,which means we have to exercise caution when comparing inputs with outputs.

Evidence gathering

Evaluation evidence


Our starting point for collecting evidence was the official CLG list of successful SRB bids for Rounds 3to 6 for the six participating RDAs. We liaised with SWRDA’s nominated lead contact over a two-month period to try and track down as much evaluation evidence for these schemes as possible.

The evaluation evidence received from SWRDA was generally robust and there are very few schemesfor which we did not receive any evidence. SWRDA had little difficulty in locating evaluations, as themajority of final reports were stored on their website.

In most instances the reports we received included the information we needed. However, weoccasionally had some difficulty in finding actual and forecast expenditure figures in the final reports,as they were sometimes either not available or not clearly stated. A few of the evaluations did notcontain the relevant information but where that was the case, SWRDA was able to locate missingoutput and expenditure data for us in the form of monitoring data.

We assumed that the data contained in independent evaluations was correct, so monitoring dataneeded to be consistently similar to evaluation evidence across a range of evaluations in order to beconsidered reliable for our purposes. We cross-referenced the monitoring data we received withseventeen final evaluations and considered the data to be consistent enough to be used to augmentour evidence base.

SWRDA has one scheme that is subject to an ongoing evaluation. The final evaluation has not beencompleted in time to be used in our work but we have been able to include monitoring data for thisscheme.




SRB

Round

Total number

of SRB

schemes

Number of

schemes with

usable evidence

received

Percentage of

schemes for

that Round

Percentage of

budgeted

expenditure for

that Round

Amount of

budgeted

expenditure for

that Round (£m)

Round 3 14 14 100% 100% 23.1

Round 4 10 9 90% 66% 6.8

Round 5 8 8 100% 100% 30.9

Round 6 18 18 100% 100% 31.7

Total 50 49 98% 96% 92.5

Source: PwC. Expenditure in this table refers to forecast SRB expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from CLG data.

As can be seen from Table 9.6, we have managed to receive usable evidence for forty-nine individualschemes, covering 98% of all Rounds 3 to 6 schemes and covering 96% of Rounds 3 to 6 budgetedexpenditure.

The amount of budgeted expenditure covered in usable evaluations is very high across the rounds,but is lower in Round 4 is because of an individual scheme for which we received an evaluation reportbut no output information.

Table 9.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme. This table illustratesthe number of schemes where we received an evaluation, rather than usable evidence. We received48 evaluations but we received usable evidence for 49 schemes, including the use of monitoring data.


SRB

Round

Number of

schemes

under £1m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Number of

schemes

£1m - £3m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Number of

schemes

above £3m

Number of

schemes

with

evaluations

received

Round 3 6 6 6 6 2 2

Round 4 6 6 3 3 1 1

Round 5 3 3 3 3 2 2

Round 6 9 7 6 6 3 3

Total 24 22 18 18 8 8

Source: PwC. Expenditure categories relate to SRB money only.

We received virtually all the available evaluation evidence for the South West. The largest number ofschemes undertaken and evaluation evidence received was in the lowest expenditure category, ofschemes under £1 million. The smallest number of evaluations schemes undertaken and evaluationsreceived was in the highest expenditure category, for schemes above £3 million.

We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individualevaluations can tell us about RDAs’ expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 9.8 provides an


overview of what we have found.





and forecast


Evaluations with

gross outputs

included

Evaluations with

net outputs

included

Round 3 14 7 11 0

Round 4 10 7 9 1

Round 5 8 7 8 0

Round 6 16 7 11 0

Total 48 28 39 1

Source: PwC

Table 9.8 only includes schemes for which we have received evaluation reports and does not includemonitoring data. Out of 48 evaluations received, 28 contained actual and forecast expenditure. Thirty-nine contained gross outputs but only one evaluation that we received contained an assessment of netoutputs. This evaluation, for West Cornwall Employment Programme 1998-2002, does not stateclearly how the net outputs have been calculated.

The limited amount of relevant information on additionality means that we will need to apply theadditionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to SWRDA’s gross SRB outputs, in orderto estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, thisapproach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the bestoption available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4,which explains the meta-evaluation’s approach and methodology.



We spoke to a mixture of people, both internal to SWRDA and amongst external partners, to try tounderstand more about SWRDA’s overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related tothe delivery of individual projects and schemes. Who we spoke to was entirely at the discretion of theRDA – the six stakeholders were nominated by the RDA, as the people they believed would be themost helpful to us in this task. A full list of stakeholder consultees can be found at Appendix C.


Gross outputs

We have collected gross output data from the evaluation evidence we have reviewed across the sixty-three official SRB output categories. A template was produced (and agreed with all the participatingRDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidencewe received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categories


that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed.



Core RDA outputs


Table 9.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the SouthWest Region. These outputs account for £92.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 96% of the forecast£96.1 million total SRB spend.


Table 9.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the South West Region

Output category Bristol Cornwall Devon Dorset Gloucestershire Plymouth Somerset West

England

Wiltshire Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 646 895 87 109 356 1,400 363 113 61 4,031


safeguarded 551 152 9 201 853 6,087 27 160 8,040


obtaining qualifications 6,576 2360 769 780 9763 21,292 1,899 5,295 305 49,039


supported surviving 52 weeks 24 49 107 437 9 11 13 650

6B Land improved/reclaimed

for development (Ha) 5 1 1 127 4,720 4,855


enterprise start-ups 23 1 3 1 16 10 27 6 3 90

Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG data and SWRDA evaluation evidence


The evaluation evidence shows that in gross terms the SRB programme in the South West created4,031 jobs, of which one-third were in Plymouth, and safeguarded a further 8,040, mainly as a result ofthe Communities First in Rural Somerset (CFIRS II) scheme. The scheme was designed to supportfarmers during the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis.

SRB in the South West led to 49,039 people gaining qualifications, a large proportion of which tookplace in Plymouth as a result of the Working Together for a Better Future scheme. Six hundred andfifty new businesses supported survived for one year, 4,855 hectares of land were improved orreclaimed for development and 90 community enterprises were established.



Table 9.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe South West Region. These outputs account for £92.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 96% of theforecast £96.1 million total SRB spend.


Table 9.10: Gross ‘other economic’ outputs in the South West Region


England

Wiltshire Total


jobs (person weeks) 4,980 6,332 1,160 1,237 1,804 28,151 2 25,909 71 69,646

1B Number of pupils


improve attainment 37,083 7,025 1,307 632 10,105 6,157 974 8,566 231 72,080



through training advice 1,879 1,266 257 322 911 900 529 311 120 6,495

1E Number of training weeks 36,834 11,878 4,164 36,507 43,350 10,244 4,057 42,062 3,203 192,299


trained gaining jobs 959 114 6 161 518 614 380 300 110 3,161


unemployed 810 60 - 103 655 203 73 78 58 2,040


employment 233 50 4 61 841 203 41 31 29 1,493


unemployed 162 8 5 34 389 28 37 18 - 681

1I (i) Number from


targeted who gain job 1,177 1,109 38 104 495 171 99 93 - 3,286




development 62,110 28,699 15,293 18,101 27,118 18,651 4,895 25,643 5,018 205,528



England

Wiltshire Total




improve student performance 173 220 229 361 102 338 13 542 - 1,978


collaborative projects 1,614 2,449 77 707 1,282 1,534 25 2,346 - 10,034



business - 15 - 40 - 2 - 18 - 75


start-ups 111 45 8 39 126 144 22 24 37 556

2B (i) New Business /

commercial floorspace (m2) 305 41 - 1,200 158 7,092 180 56 710 9,742

2B (ii) Improved

business/commercial

floorspace (m2) 32,957 - - - 5,353 8,129 284 3,490 524 50,737


supported 50 4 3 107 260 194 21 19 14 672

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 195 - - 22 42 32 21 7 8 327



SRB-assisted activities 1,174 256 123 33 1,430 6,233 1,157 2,458 73 12,937


for open space (Ha) 84 1 2 2 3 12 1 92 3 200


into use 34 57 3 7 14 27 2 108 38 290



England

Wiltshire Total

6D (i) Roads built (km) - - - - - - - - - -

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) - - - 4 2 9 - 2 - 18



As well as the core outputs discussed above, the evaluation evidence identified the following gross‘other economic’ outputs relating to jobs, training and education.

Almost 70,000 person weeks of construction jobs were created, primarily in Plymouth and the WestEngland sub-regions, which contributed around 80% to the regional total. Over 70,000 pupilsbenefited from projects to improve attainment. Over half of this activity took place in Bristol, with theoverwhelming majority attributed to the Bringing Bristol Together and Working Together for Change,Hartcliffe and Withywood schemes. More than 6,000 residents accessed employment through SRBfunded training advice,

According to the evaluation evidence over 190,000 weeks of training were provided through the SRBprogramme. These mostly took place in Bristol, Plymouth, Dorset and Gloucestershire sub-regions.Over 3,000 people who received SRB funded training gained jobs.

The evaluation reports indicated that in gross terms 1,493 people entered self employment, with 681people who were formerly unemployed entering self employment. Over 3,000 people from thedisadvantaged groups targeted by the SRB programme gained a job. Over 200,000 young peoplewere said to have benefited from SRB projects to promote personal and social development. Bristolaccounted for 30% of this activity, with the majority of this activity happening in the Bringing BristolTogether and Working Together for Change, Hartcliffe and Withywood schemes.

Around 2,000 employers and 10,000 students took part in collaborative projects. Over 500 businessstart-ups were created; 672 new business were supported through the SRB programme and 327survived for 78 weeks. Almost 10,000 m

2of new business and commercial floorspace was created, of

which almost 70% was created in Plymouth. Over 50,000 m2

of commercial floorspace was improved,of which almost two-thirds occurred in Bristol as a result of the Working Together for Change,Hartcliffe and Withywood scheme.

In terms of environmental improvements, the evidence reviewed suggests that 200 hectares of landwas improved or reclaimed for open space and 18 kilometres of roads were improved.



Table 9.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemesin the South West Region. These outputs account for £92.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 96% of theforecast £96.1 million total SRB spend.


Table 9.11: Gross ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the South West Region


England

Wiltshire Total


dwellings completed - - - - 24 - - - 70 94


dwellings improved 363 1,429 - 566 150 363 54 234 - 3,159


authority dwellings completed - - - - - - - 17 - 17


authority dwellings improved 1,094 435 440 - - 243 256 2,519 1,346 6,333



completed - 14 - 20 38 47 7 81 - 207



improved - 826 - - - - 207 - - 1,033


tenant management

organisation - - - - - - - - - 0


community safety initiatives 63,840 9,356 13,312 - 560,697 15,516 4,143 88,177 32,433 787,474

5A (ii) Aged over 60 7,034 698 3,014 - 123,022 655 882 13,699 6,993 155,997

5A (iii) Females 22,104 1,167 6,679 - 73,295 2,501 1,031 18,682 11,513 136,972


with upgraded security 5,240 841 1,077 - 5 3,292 259 1,509 679 12,902



England

Wiltshire Total



security 5,119 2 3 8 - 6 51 129 18 5,336


safety initiatives 533 159 25 26 1,068 73 84 187 177 2,332


prevention initiatives 427 217 17 55 389 57 112 1,334 139 2,747


prevention initiatives 16,573 6,909 842 9,538 7,289 3,609 995 12,471 3,049 61,275


measures 3 2 - 2 1 14 - 11 3 36

6F Number of waste


programmes 6 7 - - 1,910 - - 11 9 1,943


health facilities 31,619 34,537 1,065 325 88,610 14,652 5,580 7,020 18,258 201,666


sports facilities 17,931 98,947 150 700 9,568 14,410 4,290 43,493 11,739 201,228


cultural facilities 24,817 243,729 - 16,509 14,248 31,220 15,508 50,031 9,666 405,728


facilities 17 - - - 231 25 9 17 2 301


facilities 7 2 1 1 10 9 5 16 3 54

7A (vi) Number of new cultural 13 7 - 7 12 11 8 82 2 142



England

Wiltshire Total

facilities


health facilities 480 2,256 11,698 - 5,913 1,488 2,419 4,567 2,950 31,771


sports facilities 1,912 903 70 - 836 8,976 100 27,376 5,165 45,338


cultural facilities 1,205 408 - 13,611 3,603 61,960 1,683 7,921 631 91,022


facilities improved 9 48 1 - 3 3 1 22 1 88


facilities improved 7 48 2 - 1 2 - 28 1 89


facilities improved 18 77 - 8 9 3 5 72 6 198


organisations supported 1,050 1,675 251 38 540 1,053 670 659 162 6,098


organisations supported 920 1,109 108 41 1,061 412 238 902 248 5,039


involved in voluntary work 6,772 2,936 1,409 247 1,199 3,055 1,613 2,938 930 21,099


volunteering programmes 72 - - 24 14 90 38 - - 238


places provided 887 113 222 121 4,253 2,105 734 2,850 186 11,471



From the evaluation evidence that we have received it seems there was more emphasis on improvingexisting houses, rather than construction – only 300 houses were completed but over 10,000 wereimproved. Almost half the number of private dwellings improved were in Cornwall and over one-third ofthe local authority dwelling improvements occurred in the West England sub-region.

The SRB programme also led to new or improved community facilities. Over 200,000 people hadaccess to more than 300 new health facilities, around 226,000 accessed 54 new sports facilities andover 400,000 people accessed 142 new cultural facilities, from the evaluation evidence we reviewed.Cornwall was a significant contributor to these totals.

Almost 800,000 people benefited from over 2,000 community safety initiatives. Gloucestershireaccounted for a significant proportion of the beneficiaries. The Pivotal Drugs scheme was the chiefcontributor to this total, but it should be noted that the scheme seems to have used the populationstatistics of Gloucester and the sub-region of Gloucestershire as the number of beneficiaries, so theseoutputs are likely to have been over-reported.

Thirty-six traffic calming measures and 1,943 waste management and recycling schemes wereintroduced. Of the 1,943 waste management and recycling schemes, 1,910 were said to haveoccurred in Gloucestershire.

More than 6,000 voluntary and 5,000 community organisations were supported. More than 20,000individuals were involved in voluntary work and over 200 employees were involved in volunteeringschemes. The SRB programme also contributed to the provision of 11,471 childcare places, over athird of which were in Gloucestershire.



Table 9.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the South West Region





2C (ii) Surviving 52 weeks 114%



Source: SRB evaluation evidence received from SWRDA

When comparing actual performance to forecast, the South West presents a mixed picture. The regionsignificantly exceeded targets for the number of people trained obtaining qualifications, the amount ofland improved or reclaimed for development and the number of businesses surviving for one year. Theregion performed to target in terms of jobs created and safeguarded but significantly under-performedin terms of community enterprise start-ups.

The evaluation evidence suggests that few schemes managed to meet their target for the number ofcommunity enterprise start-ups, which may suggest the potential impact on community enterprise wasoverestimated or that these targets were difficult to achieve.



Table 9.13 Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the South WestRegion











1J Number of young people benefit from projects to promote personal & social

development 342%

1K (i) Number of employers in collaborative projects with educational institutions

to improve student performance 161%



2A Number of new business start ups 75%

2B (i) New Business/commercial floorspace (m2) 36%

2B (ii) Improved business/commercial floorspace (m2) 168%



2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB assisted activities 221%



6D (i) Roads built (km) n/a



The performance of other economic outputs is mixed, with some outputs exceeding or missing targetsby wide margins. Many of the job-related targets seem to have been missed but outputs related tosupporting businesses appear to have been exceeded, as have those relating to training.

The evidence suggests that there was a focus on improving floorspace and roads, rather thanconstruction. Only 44% of the target for new business or commercial floorspace was met, but theamount of floorspace improved was 343% of target. Similarly, no new roads were built but 156% of thetarget for road improvements was achieved. It should be noted however, that the numbers involved inroad improvements were small – 18 kilometres of road improvements achieved, against a target of 7kilometres – although this would not be considered to be a core SRB activity.











3B Number of dwellings in tenant management organisation n/a































Again, the performance of these non-economic outputs is variable but most outputs have exceededtheir targets, some by exceptionally wide margins. Aside from the fact that many schemes will haveperformed strongly, achieving performance results against target such as 3,452% (number of wastemanagement and recycling schemes), 2,895% (number of commercial buildings with upgradedsecurity) and 888% (number of new health facilities) suggests that partnerships may have sometimeshad difficulties in setting appropriate targets for some of these less familiar indicators.







Net outputs

Core RDA outputs

Applying the additionality coefficients to SWRDA’s gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) providesa view of the net core RDA outputs for the SRB programme in the South West Region, as illustrated inTable 9.15.


Table 9.15: Net core RDA outputs in the South West Region


England

Wiltshire Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 265 367 36 44 146 574 149 46 25 1,653


safeguarded237 65 4 - 86 367 2,617 12 69 3,457


obtaining qualifications3,683 1,322 431 437 5,467 11,924 1,063 2,965 171 27,462


supported surviving 52 weeks11 - - 22 47 192 4 5 6 287

6B Land improved/reclaimed

for development (Ha)2 1 - - - 62 - 2,313 - 2,379


enterprise start-ups18 1 2 1 12 8 21 5 2 70

Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG/University of Cambridge data and SWRDA evaluation evidence


In terms of net outputs, the SRB programme led to the creation of 1,653 jobs and safeguarded afurther 3,457. 27,462 people trained through the SRB programme obtained qualifications as a result.Almost 300 new businesses supported through the SRB programme survived for one year. The SRBprogramme helped 70 community enterprises to start up and nearly 2,500 hectares of land wasimproved or reclaimed for development.


Table 9.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in theSouth West Region.


Table 9.16: Net ‘other economic’ outputs in the South West Region


England

Wiltshire Total


jobs (person weeks)2,092 2,660 487 520 758 11,823 1 10,882 30 29,251

1B Number of pupils


improve attainment19,654 3,723 693 335 5,356 3,263 516 4,540 122 38,202



through training advice1,165 785 159 200 565 558 328 193 74 4,027

1E Number of training weeks 13,260 4,276 1,499 13,143 15,606 3,688 1,461 15,142 1,153 69,228


trained gaining jobs479 57 3 81 259 307 190 150 55 1,581


unemployed389 29 0 49 314 97 35 37 28 979


employment133 29 2 35 479 116 23 18 17 851


unemployed91 4 3 19 218 16 21 10 0 381

1I (i) Number from


targeted who gain job718 676 23 63 302 104 60 57 0 2,004




development29,192 13,489 7,188 8,507 12,745 8,766 2,301 12,052 2,358 96,598



England

Wiltshire Total




improve student performance104 132 137 217 61 203 8 325 0 1,187


collaborative projects791 1,200 38 346 628 752 12 1,150 0 4,917



business0 9 0 24 0 1 0 11 0 46


start-ups47 19 3 16 53 60 9 10 16 234


floorspace improved (m2)

110 15 0 432 57 2,553 65 20 256 3,507

2B (ii) New

business/commercial

floorspace (m2)

14,831 0 0 0 2,409 3,658 128 1,571 236 22,832


supported22 2 1 47 114 85 9 8 6 296

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 90 0 0 10 19 15 10 3 4 150



SRB-assisted activities505 110 53 14 615 2,680 498 1,057 31 5,563


for open space (Ha)64 1 1 1 2 9 1 70 2 152

6C Number of buildings back 18 30 2 4 7 14 1 57 20 154



England

Wiltshire Total

into use

6D (i) Roads built (km) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 0 0 0 3 2 7 0 2 0 13



Table 9.16 shows the level of net ‘other economic’ outputs. The variation is similar to that discussed inrelation to the gross ‘other economic’ outputs in Table 9.10.

Amongst other net outputs, SRB funding led to the creation of almost 30,000 person weeks ofconstruction jobs, provided almost 70,000 training weeks, created 3,507 m

2of new commercial space,

reclaimed 152 hectares of land for development, enabled almost 100,000 young people to benefit fromprojects to promote personal and social development and enabled 5,600 businesses to receive adviceas a result of SRB-assisted activities.


Table 9.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe South West Region.


Table 9.17: Net ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the South West Region


England

Wiltshire Total


dwellings completed0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 29 39


dwellings improved171 672 0 266 71 171 25 110 0 1,485


authority dwellings completed0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


authority dwellings improved547 218 220 0 0 122 128 1,260 673 3,167



completed0 6 0 9 17 21 3 36 0 93



improved0 413 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 517


tenant management

organisation0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


community safety initiatives33,197 4,865 6,922 0 291,562 8,068 2,154 45,852 16,865 409,486

5A (ii) Aged over 60 3,447 342 1,477 0 60,281 321 432 6,713 3,427 76,439

5A (iii) Females 10,389 548 3,139 0 34,449 1,175 485 8,781 5,411 64,377


with upgraded security2,568 412 528 0 2 1,613 127 739 333 6,322



England

Wiltshire Total



security2,867 1 2 4 0 3 29 72 10 2,988


safety initiatives272 81 13 13 545 37 43 95 90 1,189


prevention initiatives231 117 9 30 210 31 60 720 75 1,483


prevention initiatives11,601 4,836 589 6,677 5,102 2,526 697 8,730 2,134 42,893


measures1 1 0 1 0 7 0 5 1 17

6F Number of waste


programmes5 5 0 0 1,452 0 0 8 7 1,477


health facilities19,920 21,758 671 205 55,824 9,231 3,515 4,423 11,503 127,050


sports facilities10,938 60,358 92 427 5,836 8,790 2,617 26,531 7,161 122,749


cultural facilities16,379 160,861 0 10,896 9,404 20,605 10,235 33,020 6,380 267,780


facilities11 0 0 0 150 16 6 11 1 196


facilities4 1 1 1 6 6 3 10 2 33

7A (vi) Number of new cultural 9 5 0 5 8 7 5 56 1 97



England

Wiltshire Total

facilities


health facilities302 1,421 7,370 0 3,725 937 1,524 2,877 1,859 20,016


sports facilities937 442 34 0 410 4,398 49 13,414 2,531 22,216


cultural facilities578 196 0 6,533 1,729 29,741 808 3,802 303 43,691


facilities improved5 24 1 0 2 2 1 11 1 44






organisations supported651 1,039 156 24 335 653 415 409 100 3,781


organisations supported607 732 71 27 700 272 157 595 164 3,326


involved in voluntary work3,860 1,674 803 141 683 1,741 919 1,675 530 12,026


volunteering programmes47 0 0 16 9 59 25 0 0 155


places provided444 57 111 61 2,127 1,053 367 1,425 93 5,735



Table 9.17 shows the level of net ‘other non-economic’ outputs. The variation is similar to thatdiscussed in relation to the gross ‘other non-economic’ outputs in Table 9.11.

Amongst other net outputs, SRB funding improved over 3,000 local authority and 1,000 private sectordwellings. More than 1,000 community safety initiatives benefitted over 400,000 people. Around 3,800voluntary and 3,300 community organisations were supported and almost 13,000 people wereinvolved in voluntary work. Around 20,000 people used new sporting and health facilities and over40,000 used new cultural facilities.

Other outputs

Our review of SWRDA’s SRB evaluation evidence uncovered a range of additional outputs outside ofthe official list of sixty-three outputs.

There is data for more than fifty other outputs contained in the evaluation evidence that we havereviewed, covering a diverse range of activities. Some of the other outputs reported include housingoutputs, such as reducing maintenance costs, bringing empty dwellings back into use and reducingthe number of hard-to-let dwellings. There were also environmental outputs, such as cycle pathscreated and the number of businesses with environmental policies. The most prevalent additionaloutput in the evidence we reviewed was around capacity building initiatives, of which 2,800 werefunded.


Only some of the evaluations we have reviewed provide a discussion on outcomes and impacts. Fromthe evidence we have, there seems to have been a wide range of outcomes and impacts achieved bythe SRB programme in the South West.

Outcomes in relation to employment, education and skills appear to have been somewhat mixed. Forexample, in the Hartcliffe and Withywood, Working for Change scheme, the number of people in full-time work fell from 35% to 19% over the course of the scheme. However, the evaluation of theCheltenham Lower High Street scheme reports that the scheme exceeded its targets in terms ofreducing unemployment in the area. Similarly, in the Communities First in Rural Somerset (CFIRS II)and Boscombe schemes, the evaluation reports mention that the unemployment rate and the numberof people on state benefits have fallen. The Boscombe report notes a reduction in the proportion ofpeople on unemployment benefits from 29% to 15% and a reduction in the proportion of residents onlong-term benefits from 26% to 20%.

In terms of helping to improve access for disadvantaged people, the evaluation reports are upbeat.The Gloucester Challenging Attitudes evaluation reports that 65% of locals from the black and ethnicminority (BME) sections of the community felt that they had good access to employment, training andbusiness opportunities.

The evaluations are also generally positive in terms of schemes’ effects on reducing crime, drugabuse and community safety. Both the Forest of Dean and Bringing Glastonbury Together evaluationreports mention a fall in youth crime because of the diversionary opportunities the SRB scheme hadhelped to create. The evaluation of Weston Super Mare: Together we can make a difference is able toquantify a reduction in acquisitive crime, falling from 1,158 in 1999 to 809 in 2005. The number ofyoung people referred to drug treatment agencies showed a decline in the North Devon area, as notedin the Visions for Young People evaluation report.



Developing partnerships and links with the private, public and voluntary sectors was an integral part ofthe SRB programme. Evidence from the stakeholder consultations and evaluation reports suggestedthat partnership development was generally good and improved as time went on. The common viewwas that there was a collaborative and positive attitude towards partnership working.

The Social Inclusion Groups and Networks (SIGNS) and Communities First in Rural Somerset (CFIRSII) schemes are just two examples where the partnership was praised in their scheme evaluations.The CFIRS II evaluation notes the partnership was successful in the way it worked with developingrelationships with delivery agencies and local authorities and that the strength of the partnershipworking was one of the scheme’s key legacies, with these relationships expected to continue after thescheme finished.

The story was not uniformly positive and there were some difficulties identified in the evaluationreports. Schemes’ experiences with the private sector appear to have been variable. Difficulties inengaging the private sector were sometimes cited and it was felt by some that the small number ofvery large firms in the region may have affected the ability of the private sector to contribute. However,the leverage figures achieved by the region are comparable to other regions and private sectorcontributions in terms of time and advice provided, either as part of a Board or in some other capacity,are frequently mentioned in evaluation reports. A good example is the RADICAL scheme, where theprivate sector provided “valuable” support to the project by allowing their experienced businesspersonnel to join the Board, providing direction and guidance. Furthermore, the private sector providedmentoring support by visiting local schools and providing opportunities for teacher placements.


Governance and management of SRB schemes seems to have been well received, though notuniversally. The broad view from consultations and evaluation evidence is that SRB was wellmanaged as a programme in the South West region. A particular reason for this is the continuity ofprogramme management that existed throughout the Rounds. When responsibility for SRB transferredfrom the Government Office to SWRDA, the SRB team at the Government Office moved to SWRDAas well. This continuity was highlighted in stakeholder consultations as a key success of the SRBprogramme in the South West.

The evaluation reports provide consistent evidence of good practice and encouraging commentsabout programme management. For example, the final report of the Bringing Bristol Together schemecommented on the strong level of support provided to the scheme by the management team, and keystakeholders of the scheme cited the positive way in which the scheme was delivered as a majorstrength. The Cheltenham Lower High Street scheme was felt to have benefited from an overarchingmanagement framework and overall management was perceived to be of high quality, both inoperational and strategic terms.

Although management was broadly successful there were some weaknesses identified from theevaluation evidence we received. One weakness was a delay in recruiting key team members, suchas the scheme manager. This sometimes led to delays in meeting scheme deadlines and submittingquarterly returns, which in turn led to delays in the release of funds from the accountable body. Forexample, the Weston Super Mare: Together We can Make a Difference report noted that recruitmentoften took longer than planned, with subsequent difficulties in project delivery and meeting targets.There was also some discontent with monitoring procedures, which were considered by some tointerfere with the running of schemes and put an unnecessary burden on the scheme manager.

A common criticism levelled at the partnership Boards was they did not take sufficient notice ofcommunity views and sometimes lacked vision. For example, the Board in the Bringing BristolTogether scheme is criticised in the evaluation report for not having a strong leadership, which led to alack of vision and guidance and an underperformance against its original targets.

A related criticism was that the Board sometimes refused to listen and acknowledge the opinions ofyoung people, despite the fact that they were the key beneficiaries in certain schemes. For example,


the TVRS Wonford evaluation report cites that the partnership struggled to involve young people in theoverall decision making process, despite the fact there was provision for this in the scheme’sconstitution.


Community engagement was one of the most frequently-cited benefits of SRB in the South Westregion. The majority of evidence from evaluation reports and stakeholder consultations demonstratesstrong levels of community engagement, ranging from involvement in the decision-making process(either in the form of a role on the advisory Board or as a member of the Partnership) through toinvolvement in delivery and participation.

Several evaluation reports noted the importance of the local community becoming involved in thedecision-making process and taking ownership of the scheme within their area. A good example oflocal community empowerment and active involvement was the Working for Change, Hartcliffe andWithywood scheme, where the community was represented on the Board and on theme-specificsteering groups. The scheme was able to build upon and work with existing community groups andmuch of the delivery was carried out by local residents. The Withywood centre is cited as a particularlygood example of consulting and engaging the local community, with extensive consultationundertaken using a variety of different methods.

The SRB programme not only aimed to improve participation but also to promote inclusion byinvolving residents from ethnic minority groups. The Gloucestershire Challenging Attitudes Partnershipwas specifically targeted to raise the living standards experienced by the black and ethnic minoritycommunities in the area. The scheme aimed to identify and address barriers to training, education andsupport, in addition to developing and promoting minority businesses. The scheme was considered tohave been reasonably successful and made some inroads into increasing the amount of opportunitiesavailable to the targeted section of the community.

One area where the level of community engagement was found to be less successful was in youthinvolvement, although this varied from scheme to scheme. The most frequently-mentioned reason forthe lack of youth involvement was the feeling that scheme Boards were out of touch with the needs ofthe youth in their local community. The Forest of Dean and Communities, Housing, Employment,Environmental and Regeneration Schemes (CHEERS) scheme evaluations make particular referenceto this.

Strategic impact

The evaluation reports offer some patchy evidence on the strategic impact of SRB. Two of the mostnoteworthy achievements appear to have been the precedent set for future working relationships inthe area and the ability to leverage additional funding sources.

The overwhelming majority of evaluation reports remark on the benefits of joined-up workingengendered by SRB and the positive legacy this has left behind. Around half the evaluation reportsmade mention of the added value that successful local partnership working brought. SRBpartnerships in the South West involved a wide range of organisations from the public, private andvoluntary sectors, bringing together a broad set of skills and talents.

The SRB programme is considered to have been effective at developing and strengthening communitylinks and in fostering closer ties between various agencies. For example, the CFIRS II scheme reportcommented on the closer working between the scheme officers, communities and businesses. Thestrength of these working relationships had helped to re-build trust and understanding betweenstatutory bodies and farmers after the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis and were expected to continue afterthe end of the scheme.

In addition to stronger working relationships, the SRB programme also allowed some sharing of goodpractice and lessons learnt. A good example is the Youth Workers Network Forum in the Forest ofDean scheme, which championed knowledge sharing.


Leverage

We have collected information about leverage from £77.3 million of evaluation evidence where suchdata was included. This programme spend of £77.3 million secured £180 million of public and privatesector funding, giving a leverage ratio of 2.3 to 1. Evidence from stakeholder consultations suggestedthat it had been difficult to leverage funding, in particular from the private sector, with the small numberof large firms in the region with the financial ability to contribute generously considered to be a keyfactor. Table 9.18 outlines the leverage information we were able to gather from evaluation evidence.

Table 9.18: Leverage in the South West Region (£ million)


funding

Public sector

funding

Leverage ratio

Round 3 22.3 13.8 44.3 £1 : £2.60

Round 4 6.8 9.4 13.6 £1 : £3.40

Round 5 15.8 4.9 17.1 £1 : £1.40

Round 6 32.4 14.5 61.8 £1 : £2.40

Total 77.3 42.6 136.9 £1 : £2.30

Source: SWRDA evaluation evidence


Overall the South West SRB programme is considered to have been reasonably successful in terms ofprogramme sustainability. Where this has taken place, funding for the scheme beyond SRB oftencame from other programme funds, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund or the Heritage LotteryFund. In some instances the schemes themselves became self-financing.

Sustainability was evident in some schemes. For example, well over half of the projects in the WestonSuper Mare: Together we can make a difference scheme were sustained, often through additionalfunding. Evaluation evidence suggests that this did not happen more often because schemes did notconsider life beyond SRB early enough and did not give themselves sufficient time and resource todevise forward strategies.

The common view from the stakeholders we spoke to is that the SRB programme did leave a lastinglegacy behind. Notwithstanding the obvious example of capital expenditure, such as housing,infrastructure and environmental improvements, other examples include partnership working and thedissemination of good practice.


Some of the noted strengths of the programme appear to be the level of community engagement,strategic added value in terms of joined-up working and effective programme management systems.The level of community engagement appears to have been positive throughout the SRB programme inthe South West. For instance, the Bringing Bristol Together evaluation report comments: “Throughoutthis evaluation we have observed a clear sense of local ownership/delivery at grass roots level,contributing to a positive relationship between delivery projects and the programme managementteam and a clearly increasing sense of community in some places.”

Joined-up working has also been a positive factor in many schemes. The Youth Owning UrbanRegeneration (YOUR) evaluation report comments that: “Without YOUR’s work this sort ofcollaborative working probably wouldn’t have happened, with the result that provision could have beenduplicated and smaller providers could have been squeezed out.”


One of the weaknesses of the programme was the inconsistency of private sector engagement. TheBringing Bristol Together evaluation notes that: “There was a lack of private sector engagement orinvolvement in the programme and no apparent emphasis on the importance of making Bristolattractive to private investors.”

Another weakness cited in some reports was an insufficient clarity over the roles and functions ofvarious stakeholders, which delayed the decision-making process. The Hamp for Hamp evaluation inparticular makes reference to this: “The decision to combine responsibility, however, for both projectdevelopment and programme management and administration within the Programme Manager rolewas not wholly successful…greater clarity of line management responsibilities and the accountablebody role was also required.”

As is almost inevitable with so many diverse schemes, success has been mixed. The evaluationevidence appears to suggest that the strengths have been more widespread than the weaknesses.

Value for money


Conclusions

The SRB programme funded 71 individual schemes in the South West, of which 50 took place duringRounds 3 to 6. The South West received £167.9million in funding, of which £96 million was betweenRounds 3 to 6. Bristol and Plymouth accounted for 36% of the region’s most deprived SOAs andreceived almost 60% of the region’s total funding allocation.

We received 48 evaluation reports, covering 96% of expenditure. From this evidence we haveestimated that the South West’s SRB programme created 1,689 net jobs and safeguarded another3,496. More than 27,000 people trained through these schemes obtained qualifications and 286supported businesses survived for one year. Almost 6,000 hectares of land was reclaimed fordevelopment and 70 community enterprises were established.

Partnership working and community engagement are considered by evaluators and stakeholders tohave been noteworthy achievements of the South West’s SRB programme. The programme was feltto be successful at developing and strengthening community ties and is considered to have fosteredcloser working relationships between various agencies, bringing together key partners from the public,private and voluntary sectors.

From the evidence we have reviewed, the main learning points from the SRB programme are:

it is important to ensure sufficient time and resource is available to the delivery team to manageand administer a scheme from the outset;

it is essential to devise forward strategies in anticipation of the funding regime coming to an end, inorder to ensure that alternative arrangements are in place when the funding ends and to facilitate asmooth transition to any successor scheme;

key stakeholders and partners must be fully engaged from the outset, to ensure continuingstrategic commitment and vision;

there must be a sense of realism about what can be achieved within a given timeframe and with


the amount of funding that is available; and

programme and scheme management should ensure that the necessary staff are in place as soonas possible, ideally from the outset, to ensure that time and momentum is not lost at the beginningof a programme.


10 The impact of SRB inYorkshire and Humber

Introduction

This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for theYorkshire and Humber region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section4 of this report and includes:

background information on the Yorkshire and Humber region;








Overview of the Yorkshire and Humber region

The Yorkshire and Humber region is the fifth largest region in England in terms of land area andcomprises seven counties – East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston-upon-Hull, North East Lincolnshire,North Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. The region has a diverseurban/rural mix, including the five cities of Bradford, Leeds, York, Sheffield and Hull. It also has ahigher than average area of designated green-belt land at 17% of the region’s land area, against anoverall average for England of 13%.

Yorkshire and Humber is the sixth largest region by population size, with a population of 5.1 million(2006), approximately 10% of the total population of England. The population density overall is 328per square kilometre, with the most densely populated area being West Yorkshire at 1,004 per squarekilometre.

The economy for the region is estimated to be around £82 billion and, since 2001, has beencharacterised by strong GDP growth which has been higher than the UK as a whole. It is an economyin transition, evolving from a heavy dependence on large scale manufacturing and traditionalindustries, for example, the region still accounts for around 17% of the UK’s power generation capacityand 30% of the UK coal-fired capacity.

In this context, the region continues to strive towards a more diverse business base including digital


industries, environmental technologies and financial services which all represent growth sectors withinthe region. The region has also experienced declining unemployment rates in recent years and, in2005, the employment rate was on a par with the UK average at almost 74%.


28in England are in the Yorkshire and Humber

region. This represents the third highest figure nationally, with only the North West (21.3%) andLondon (20.5%) ahead.

This figure masks significant sub-regional variations, as outlined in Table 10.1:

Table 10.1: SRB deprivation figures for sub-regions within YF





region as a whole


lowest IMD quartile

nationally

Humber 189 18% 16%

North Yorkshire 39 15% 3%

South Yorkshire 375 26% 33%

West Yorkshire 543 42% 47%

Total 1146 100% 100%


West Yorkshire and to a lesser extent South Yorkshire contain a significantly higher proportion ofSOAs compared to their Humber and North Yorkshire counterparts. West Yorkshire has three timesthe proportion of SOAs in the bottom IMD quartile nationally than the region as a whole.

Regional context


Table 10.2: Number of SRB schemes in the Yorkshire and Humber Region


region (% of total schemes in the

region)


(% of total schemes nationally)

Round 1 22 (22%) 201 (20%)

Round 2 15 (15%) 172 (17%)

Round 3 16 (16%) 182 (18%)

Round 4 14 (14%) 121 (12%)

Round 5 14 (14%) 163 (16%)

Round 6 19 (19%) 189 (18%)

Overall total 100 (100%) 1,028 (100%)

Rounds 3-6 63 (63%) 655 (64%)

Source: CLG



One hundred schemes were funded in Yorkshire and Humber across the six Rounds of SRB. Sixty-three of these schemes were funded through Rounds 3 to 6. The overall proportion of regionalschemes in Rounds 3 to 6 is consistent with the national picture and there is little variation in theregional distribution of SRB schemes across the SRB rounds. Round 1 saw the highest number andproportion of schemes in the region, as was the case nationally; Rounds 4 and 5 saw the lowestnumber and proportion of schemes in the region.

SRB expenditure



SRB Round SRB expenditure (£m) % of region’s totalSRB expenditure


Round 1 202.2 23% 18%

Round 2 151.1 17% 13%

Round 3 130.6 15% 14%

Round 4 57.8 7% 18%

Round 5 108.8 12% 10%

Round 6 230.2 26% 19%


Rounds 3-6 527.2 60% 15%

Source: CLG

Yorkshire and Humber received £880.5 million of SRB funding across the six rounds, representing15% of the national total. £527 million of this total was spent in Rounds 3 to 6, representing 15% ofthe equivalent national figure.

There are some interesting variations in the regional and national figures. For instance, whilst Round 4expenditure only represents 7% of the regional total, it represents nearly one-fifth (18%) of Round 4expenditure across all regions. Over one-quarter (26%) of regional SRB expenditure occurs in Round6, representing just under one-fifth of the national expenditure for that Round.

Table 10.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of YF’s budgeted expenditure per SRB round.

Table 10.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per round, per sub-region (£m)


Humber 21.2 11.6 4.5 52.4 89.7

North Yorkshire - 1.1 4.4 11.1 16.6

South Yorkshire 55.8 19.7 43.6 99.8 218.9

West Yorkshire 53.6 25.4 56.3 66.1 201.3

Regional/other - - - 0.7 0.7

Total 130.6 57.8 108.8 230.1 527.2



The significant sub-regional variation continues, with South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire SRBexpenditure accounting for the majority (80%) of total regional expenditure across Rounds 3 to 6.Humber’s expenditure accounts for 17% of the total, leaving North Yorkshire’s SRB expenditureaccounting for only 3% of the total. The highest proportion of SRB expenditure occurs in Round 6,accounting for 44% of the total. Nearly half of South Yorkshire’s expenditure (46%) and a third ofWest Yorkshire’s expenditure occurs in Round 6.

Table 10.5 outlines actual SRB expenditure by YF between 2002/03 and 2006/07, which is the‘relevant expenditure’ period in the overall RDA impact evaluation.



2002/03 112.2

2003/04 92.0

2004/05 63.1

2005/06 36.3

2006/07 28.0

Overall total 331.6

Source: YF

YF’s relevant expenditure total for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is £1,170 million.This means that SRB accounts for 28.3% of YF’s expenditure in the overall RDA impact evaluation.

The figures in Table 10.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that wehave evaluated, as some of the spend on projects in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from2002/03 to 2006/07. However, all the Rounds 3 to 6 outputs are included in the meta-evaluation,which means we have to be very careful when comparing inputs with outputs.

Evidence gathering

Evaluation evidence


Although it was possible to source the majority of evaluation reports for the period in question, thismasks a wide variation in the quality of reports and therefore our ability to use the evidence. Thevariation is extreme, from those that did not provide details of SRB expenditure and/or the outputsgenerated, to those that provided a commentary on the potential net value of outputs.



Table 10.6: SRB evaluation evidence received by round

SRB

Round

Total number

of SRB

schemes

Number of

schemes with

usable evidence

received

Percentage of

schemes for

that Round

Percentage of

Expenditure for

that Round

Amount of

Expenditure for

that Round (£m)

Round 3 16 14 88% 66% 85.6

Round 4 14 11 79% 93% 53.7

Round 5 14 11 79% 79% 85.7

Round 6 19 9 47% 35% 80.7

Total 63 45 71% 58% 305.6

Source: York Consulting. Expenditure in this table refers to forecast SRB expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from CLGdata.

With the exception of Round 6, the percentage of schemes with usable evidence is good. It should benoted that YF is expecting to receive evaluation reports covering six SRB schemes, representing anadditional £133.8 million of SRB expenditure, around the end of this meta-evaluation. In particular, theSouth Yorkshire Coalfields evaluation report accounts for an additional £112.2 million of Round 5 and6 combined expenditure.

If the evidence contained within these reports is usable (and we believe it will be) this will boost thenumber of Round 5 and 6 schemes with usable evidence to 13 each. This will increase thepercentage of Round 5 schemes with usable evidence to 93%. The comparable figure for Round 6will increase to 68%. In expenditure terms, Round 5 expenditure will rise to 96% and the Round 6figure will more than double to 85%. The overall total will increase by to £439.4 million and totalpercentage covered will increase to 83%.

Table 10.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme.


SRB

Round

Number of

schemes

under £1m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Number of

schemes

£1m - £3m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Number of

schemes

above £3m

Number of

schemes with

evaluations

received

Round 3 1 1 4 3 11 10

Round 4 0 0 6 5 8 6

Round 5 1 0 7 7 6 4

Round 6 4 0 2 2 13 7

Total 6 1 19 17 38 27


Overall, the profile of evidence received across the four Rounds and for schemes of different sizes isgood. The most noticeable gap is for Round 6 schemes with expenditure under £1 million. Sixtypercent of schemes are in the ‘above £3 million’ category, for which we currently have 58% evaluationreport coverage. Coverage in this category is affected by the ongoing evaluations that are still tocomplete.







and forecast


Evaluations with

gross outputs

included

Evaluations with

net outputs

included

Round 3 14 12 11 0

Round 4 11 10 10 0

Round 5 11 5 8 0

Round 6 9 7 9 1

Total 45 34 38 1


With the exception of Round 5, the majority of evaluation reports have included actual and forecastexpenditure. Unfortunately, six of the Round 5 evaluation reports did not include this data. Themajority of evaluation reports reviewed reported on the gross outputs delivered by the schemes. Thelow numbers in the final column means that, with the exception of one report, additionality has notbeen considered in enough depth at the regional level to help us in our work. This has implications forour work, as it is essential to understand net impact.

The limited amount of relevant information on additionality means that we will need to apply theadditionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to YF’s gross SRB outputs, in order toestimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, thisapproach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the bestoption available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4,which explains the meta-evaluation’s approach and methodology.



We spoke to a mixture of people, both internal to YF and amongst external partners, to try tounderstand more about YF’s overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to thedelivery of individual projects and schemes. Who we spoke to was entirely at the discretion of the RDA– the six stakeholders were nominated by the RDA, as the people they believed would be the mosthelpful to us in this task. A full list of stakeholder consultees can be found at Appendix C.


Gross outputs


This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRBoutputs across the board. However, we have also been mindful of the need to capture a range of


qualitative information as well. To this end, the recording template contained a range of qualitativefields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; communityengagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths andweaknesses.


Core RDA outputs


Table 10.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the Yorkshireand Humber Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgetedSRB expenditure of £306 million, or 58% of the budgeted £527 million SRB spend.

Table 10.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region

Output category Humber North

Yorkshire

South

Yorkshire

West

Yorkshire

Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 2398 271 9612 3796 16,077

1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded 2287 344 2841 3282 8,754



14432 7277 29969 19922 71,600


surviving 52 weeks

197 6 277 232 712


development (Ha)

35 10 109 199 353



45 28 34 97 204

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on CLG data and evaluation evidence provided by YF

The Yorkshire and Humber region demonstrated strong performance in the core RDA outputcategories, especially in relation to the number of people trained gaining qualifications, which makesup 73% of the total outputs recorded. There are also significant totals for the number of jobs createdand number of jobs safeguarded across the region.

South Yorkshire was the strongest performing sub-region, accounting for 42% of the people trainedoutput and 60% of the jobs created output. The ‘New Deal for Barnsley’ Round 4 scheme produced anumber of significant core RDA outputs, including 4,974 jobs created, 1,694 jobs safeguarded and13,586 people trained obtaining qualifications. The ‘New York Riverside’ scheme focused inRotherham was the second highest contributor to jobs created, with 1,883.

West Yorkshire also performed well, contributing the most number of jobs safeguarded (37% of thetotal) and 28% of the people trained total. The ‘Platform for Change’ Round 5 scheme created 1,071jobs in Huddersfield and the ‘Facing the Challenge’ Round 3 scheme safeguarded just under 1,000jobs in Manningham and Girlington, Bradford. The ‘Foundations for a Competitive Economy’ Round 3scheme based in Wakefield contributed significantly (5,067) to the people trained obtainingqualifications total.



Of the remaining 57 outputs, we have categorised 23 as ‘other economic’ outputs – outputs that havea distinct economic focus to them, but which are not included in the RDA’s core outputs.

Table 10.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes inthe Yorkshire and Humber Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which accountfor budgeted SRB expenditure of £306 million, or 58% of the budgeted £527 million SRB spend.

Table 10.10: Gross ‘other economic’ outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region

Output category Humber NorthYorkshire

SouthYorkshire

WestYorkshire

Total

1A (iii) Number of construction jobs

(person weeks)

28847 17140 42361 199606 287,954



attainment

88949 18087 144125 89100 340,261

1D Number of residents accessing

employment through training

advice

1598 563 8010 8379 18,550

1E Number of training weeks 70073 27414 70077 189961 357,525


gaining jobs

826 369 5563 2288 9,046


unemployed

3122 185 4029 1473 8,809


employment

467 12 1279 583 2,341


unemployed

140 0 125 268 533

1I (i) Number from disadvantaged

groups targeted who gain job

446 138 748 238 1570


benefiting from projects to promote

personal and social development

86239 29818 210889 242715 569,661



educational institutions to improve

student performance

493 570 1952 1442 4,457



19133 672 33341 15438 68,584

1L (i) Number of teachers in target

area on placement into business

105 2 203 206 516

2A Number of new business start-

ups

549 42 2200 533 3,324


floorspace improved (m2)

20596 2601 160539 66496 250,232


floorspace (m2)

62254 6199 29850 60629 158,932

2C (i) New businesses supported 272 23 398 678 1,371



SouthYorkshire

WestYorkshire

Total

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 162 9 282 135 588




3946 1760 3799 9226 18,731


open space (Ha)

645 7188 170 426 8,429

6C Number of buildings back into

use

138 120 102 304 664

6D (i) Roads built (km) 2 1 8 1 12

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 113 0 5 17 135

Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG data and YF evaluation evidence

The strongest output area numerically was the number of young people benefiting from projects topromote personal and social development, with over half a million (569,661) outputs recorded. Four-fifths of this total was the result of schemes in South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Schemescontributing significantly to this total include ‘New Deal for Barnsley’ (122,239), ‘Facing the Challenge’in Bradford (91,770) and the ‘Newlands Integrated Regeneration Strategy’ (56,630), also based inBradford.

The number of training weeks output is also significant (357,525). Over half (53%) of this figure wasdelivered by schemes in West Yorkshire, including a significant (72,385) input made by the ‘Platformfor Change’ scheme in Huddersfield. Humber and South Yorkshire each contributed 20% of the totalnumber of training weeks.

SRB schemes in South Yorkshire contributed 42% of the 340,261 pupils benefiting from projects toimprove attainment, most notably 95,120 from the ‘New Deal for Barnsley scheme. A further 52% ofthis total was provided equally by schemes in Humber and West Yorkshire.

West Yorkshire was a particularly strong contributor to the total number of 287,954 person weeks ofconstruction jobs, providing 69% of these outputs. The ‘Platform for Change’ scheme in Huddersfieldcontributed 84,303 outputs and the Aire Valley Round 6 scheme contributed an additional 54,551 jobs.

Schemes in South Yorkshire contributed nearly two-thirds (64%) of the business / commercialfloorspace output total and schemes in North Yorkshire reported 85% of the total for land improved /reclaimed for open space.

Schemes in South Yorkshire led the way for the roads built target by building 8 kilometres of the totalof 12 kilometres recorded across the region, whereas schemes in Humber contributed 113 kilometres(84%) of the total for kilometres of roads improved (135 km).



Table 10.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRBschemes in the Yorkshire and Humber Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemeswhich account for budgeted SRB expenditure of £306 million, or 58% of the budgeted £527 millionSRB spend.


Table 10.11: Gross ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region


Yorkshire

South

Yorkshire

West

Yorkshire

Total


completed

82 0 40 357 479


improved

681 31 1682 1782 4,176


dwellings completed

0 20 0 0 20


dwellings improved

765 183 1351 2732 5,031


association dwellings completed

19 0 66 44 129


association dwellings improved

55 19 0 313 387


management organisation

0 0 0 40 40


community safety initiatives

373524 6203 232122 262367 874,216

5A (ii) Aged over 60 103359 56205 11379 11664 182,607

5A (iii) Females 55396 300 31737 32706 120,139


upgraded security

6056 692 13717 21485 41,950


buildings with upgraded security

502 33 1146 812 2,493


initiatives

526 186 573 1152 2,437



607 215 931 2150 3,903



31690 1441 25077 77229 135,437


measures

2 3 9 16 30

6F Number of waste

management/recycling schemes

65 4 21 45 135


facilities

26419 2000 53685 142680 224,784


sports facilities

13658 3900 82150 75063 174,771


cultural facilities

1922264 14930 123752 309480 2,370,426


facilities

8 6 22 347 383


facilities

165 28 21 73 287


facilities

47 52 25 194 318



Yorkshire

South

Yorkshire

West

Yorkshire

Total


health facilities

4380 2500 50483 20165 77,528


sports facilities

10102 2444 52313 25811 90,670


cultural facilities

987144 15151 80600 80288 1,163,183


improved

4 0 230 209 443


improved

151 0 18 119 288


improved

39 50 117 245 451


organisations supported

1292 1194 3458 3238 9,182


organisations supported

1746 808 2766 3496 8,816


in voluntary work

6549 2339 15561 14664 39,113



41 0 59 5 105


provided

899 140 2532 4902 8,473

Source: York Consulting analysis based on CLG data and evaluation evidence provided by YF

The Yorkshire and Humber region performed particularly strongly in community safety and in theprovision of health, sporting and cultural facilities.

The total number of people benefiting from community safety initiatives was 874,216, with the RiverHull Corridor Round 3 scheme in Hull contributing 43% of this total. A fifth of this total were peopleaged over 60 and 14% were female.

Over 135,000 people attended crime prevention initiatives, 57% of whom resided in West Yorkshire, ofwhich just under 60,000 was shared equally between the Manningham and Girlington and Newlandsschemes in Bradford. Nearly 4,000 youth crime prevention initiatives were established, over half ofwhich (55%) were also in West Yorkshire.

Nearly 42,000 dwellings benefited from upgraded security, over half of which (51%) were in WestYorkshire. One-quarter of these outputs were a result of activities delivered by the ‘BetterNeighbourhoods & Confident Communities’ Round 5 scheme in Leeds. Just under 2,500 commercialbuildings had their security upgraded (47% in West Yorkshire).

The non-economic outputs related to establishing new health, sporting and cultural facilities, havingaccess to these facilities and using them resulted in some unusually large output totals. For example,over 2 million people had access to new cultural facilities, 81% of which related to the ‘River HullCorridor’ scheme in Hull.

Just over one million people used these facilities (85% from Humber). Just fewer than 225,000 peoplehad access to new health facilities and 77,528 people used these facilities. The access to healthfacilities was more prevalent in West Yorkshire (63%), predominantly through the ‘BetterNeighbourhoods & Confident Communities’ scheme in Leeds. The use of health facilities was moredominant in South Yorkshire (65%).


Just under 175,000 people had access to new sports facilities, with 90,670 people using them.Access to sports facilities was approximately shared between South Yorkshire (47%) and WestYorkshire (43%), whereas the usage of facilities was more prevalent in schemes in South Yorkshire(58%).



Table 10.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the Yorkshire andHumber Region


Number of jobs created 116%

Number of jobs safeguarded 196%

Number of people trained obtaining qualifications 125%

New businesses supported surviving 52 weeks 192%

Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha) 118%

Number of community enterprise start ups 105%

Source: York Consulting analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from YF

There was strong performance against forecast targets for all six core RDA outputs, particularly for thenumber of jobs safeguarded and number of new businesses surviving 52 weeks, where targets wereexceeded by nearly 100% in both cases.


Table 10.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the Yorkshireand Humber Region












social development

264%


institutions to improve student performance

145%











activities

234%






There are only two areas where targets were not met – the target for the number of people trainedgaining jobs has been undershot by nearly half (44%) and the area of land improved/reclaimed foropen space has only met 60% of its target.

Particularly strong performance was achieved against the target for road improvements, where theoriginal forecast was exceeded by 674%. The forecast for business surviving 78 weeks wasexceeded by a factor of 2.5 and the forecast for the number of businesses receiving advice throughSRB-assisted activities was exceeded by 134%. The forecast for the number of young peoplebenefiting from projects to promote personal and social development was exceeded by a factor of 2.6.









































There were four areas of underperformance against the non-economic targets. These were: thenumber of employee volunteering schemes (59% achieved); the number of local authority dwellingsimproved (62% achieved); the number of females benefiting from community safety initiatives (76%achieved); and the number of commercial buildings with upgraded security (83% achieved).

There were a number of outputs where one might question the validity of the original forecasts,especially as they relate to capital expenditure. The number of new health facilities forecast wasexceeded by 367% and the forecast for improved health facilities was exceeded by a factor of 9.63.Additionally, the forecast for the number of sports facilities improved was exceeded by 677%.

Similarly, the scope for who has been included as counting towards the number of people using thesefacilities may be open to scrutiny, as these forecasts were exceeded by a factor of just under 4 (usingimproved health facilities), a factor of 3 (using improved sports facilities) and a factor of 4.85 (usingimproved cultural facilities).

Other areas of strong performance include the forecast for the number of waste management andrecycling schemes, which was exceeded by a factor of 4, and the forecast for the number ofcommunity organisations being supported, which was exceeded by a factor of 3.








Net outputs

Core RDA outputs

Applying the additionality coefficients to YF’s gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides aview of the net core RDA outputs for the Yorkshire and Humber Region SRB programme, asillustrated in Table 10.15.

Table 10.15: Net core RDA outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region


SouthYorkshire

WestYorkshire

Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created 983 111 3941 1556 6,592

1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded 983 148 1222 1411 3,764


obtaining qualifications 8082 4075 16783 11156 40,096


surviving 52 weeks 87 3 122 102 313


development (Ha) 17 5 53 98 173


enterprise start-ups 35 22 27 76 159

Source: York Consulting analysis, based on CLG/University of Cambridge data and YF evaluation evidence

The net core RDA outputs reflect the strong performance presented in Table 10.9. The number of


people trained obtaining qualifications, the number of jobs created and the number of jobssafeguarded remain the key core outputs. Schemes in South Yorkshire and, to a lesser extent, WestYorkshire have made the greatest contribution.


Table 10.16 provides an overview of the other net economic outputs achieved by the SRB programmein the Yorkshire and Humber Region.

Table 10.16: Net ‘other economic’ outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region


Yorkshire

South

Yorkshire

West

Yorkshire

Total

1A (iii) Number of construction jobs

(person weeks) 12116 7199 17792 83835 120,941

1B Number of pupils benefiting from

projects to improve attainment 47143 9586 76386 47223 180,338

1D Number of residents accessing

employment through training advice 991 349 4966 5195 11,501

1E Number of training weeks 25226 9869 25228 68386 128,709


gaining jobs 413 185 2782 1144 4,523


unemployed 1499 89 1934 707 4,228

1G Number entering self employment 266 7 729 332 1,334


unemployed 78 0 70 150 298

1I (i) Number from disadvantaged

groups targeted who gain job 272 84 456 145 958


benefiting from projects to promote

personal and social development 40532 14014 99118 114076 267,741



educational institutions to improve

student performance 296 342 1171 865 2,674


collaborative projects 9375 329 16337 7565 33,606

1L (i) Number of teachers in target

area on placement into business 64 1 124 126 315

2A Number of new business start-ups 231 18 924 224 1,396


floorspace improved (m2) 7415 936 57794 23939 90,084


floorspace (m2) 28014 2790 13433 27283 71,519

2C (i) New businesses supported 120 10 175 298 603

2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 75 4 130 62 270

2D Number of businesses receiving

advice as a result of SRB-assisted

activities 1697 757 1634 3967 8,054



Yorkshire

South

Yorkshire

West

Yorkshire

Total

6A Land improved/reclaimed for open

space (Ha) 490 5463 129 324 6,406

6C Number of buildings back into use 73 64 54 161 352

6D (i) Roads built (km) 1 1 4 1 6

6D (ii) Roads improved (km) 85 0 4 13 101


The relative strengths and sub-regional performance for the net ‘other economic’ outputs remains thesame as reported for the gross outputs presented in Table 10.10. However, the gross to netadjustment for the number of training weeks has been greater than the adjustment for the number ofpupils benefiting from projects to improve attainment, resulting in the latter overtaking the former andclaiming second position in net numerical terms.


Table 10.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by the SRBprogramme in the Yorkshire and Humber Region.

Table 10.17: Net ‘other non-economic’ outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region


Yorkshire

South

Yorkshire

West

Yorkshire

Total


completed 34 0 17 150 201


improved 320 15 791 838 1,963


dwellings completed 0 0 0 0 0


dwellings improved 383 92 676 1366 2,516


association dwellings completed 9 0 30 20 58


association dwellings improved 28 10 0 157 194


management organisation 0 0 0 26 26


community safety initiatives 194232 3226 120703 136431 454,592

5A (ii) Aged over 60 50646 27540 5576 5715 89,477

5A (iii) Females 26036 141 14916 15372 56,465


upgraded security 2967 339 6721 10528 20,556


buildings with upgraded security 281 18 642 455 1,396


initiatives 268 95 292 588 1,243


prevention initiatives 328 116 503 1161 2,108



Yorkshire

South

Yorkshire

West

Yorkshire

Total


prevention initiatives 22183 1009 17554 54060 94,806


measures 1 1 4 8 14

6F Number of waste

management/recycling schemes 49 3 16 34 103


facilities 16644 1260 33822 89888 141,614


sports facilities 8331 2379 50112 45788 106,610


cultural facilities 1268694 9854 81676 204257 1,564,481


facilities 5 4 14 226 249


facilities 102 17 13 45 178


facilities 32 35 17 132 216


health facilities 2759 1575 31804 12704 48,843


sports facilities 4950 1198 25633 12647 44,428


cultural facilities 473829 7272 38688 38538 558,328


improved 2 0 115 105 222


improved 91 0 11 71 173


improved 19 25 57 120 221


organisations supported 801 740 2144 2008 5,693


organisations supported 1152 533 1826 2307 5,819


in voluntary work 3733 1333 8870 8358 22,294


volunteering schemes 27 0 38 3 68


provided 450 70 1266 2451 4,237


The gross to net adjustment for ‘other non-economic’ outputs has not resulted in any significantchanges to the commentary on the gross figures presented in Table 12.9. The only minor change hasbeen in the relative order of the numerical outputs, with the outputs for access to new sports facilitiesmoving from sixth to fifth position.



The logic model for the national SRB programme assumes that from a position of market failure,significant investment (SRB funding plus public/private leverage) and other resources (staff, materialsetc.) led to a wide range of activities being undertaken, which in turn resulted in outputs, which led todemonstrable economic, social and community-oriented outcomes.

The stakeholders we consulted stressed that, whilst the majority of SRB schemes sought to addressthe same multiple objectives, the schemes themselves were so different in terms of their geographicalfocus, community composition and economic starting point that any attempt to generalise theconclusions would be unhelpful. However, it is possible to see how the focus of different Rounds ofSRB has sought to deliver different outcomes.

Eight schemes addressed single themes and, in the majority of cases, it has been easier to determinethe impact of these schemes compared to their multi-objective counterparts. Four of these schemeswere focused on the educational achievement, training and employment prospects and socialdevelopment of young people. Although the geographic focus was different, these four schemes eachcovered SRB Rounds 3 to 6. Two schemes focused on ‘softer’ objectives – one of these concentratedon community capacity building and the other had a single objective of promoting a positive attitude tolearning. The final two schemes with a single-theme objective focused on employability – oneprogramme targeted a particular geographic area and the other, a relatively small scheme, focused onfemale offenders.

The focus for Round 3 was largely about tackling unemployment, raising educational attainment andtackling crime. A number of evaluations we reviewed were able to demonstrate how from a baselineposition, unemployment rates had fallen in the SRB area, educational attainment had improved andeither crime rates or anti-social behaviour had been reduced. Attributing this impact solely to SRBinvestment, schemes and activities has been more problematic against a backdrop of an increasinglypositive national economic situation. However, some evaluators have shown how some of the rates ofchange have outstripped regional or national averages.

SRB Round 4 built on the Round 3 objectives, with an added focus on encouraging communityengagement. Consequently, commentary on the harder economic impact indicators around jobcreation, reducing unemployment and increasing skills development are recorded alongside softerimpact measures such as the development of community networks and community infrastructure. Italso became clear, that for some communities, although outputs had been generated and progresshad been made, some of the key issues that these communities faced were still prevalent.

A number of stakeholders characterised the Round 5 programme as being about community capacitybuilding, i.e. moving on from the community engagement focus of Round 4 to encouraging communityownership and delivery of projects within individual schemes. Therefore, there was more focus oncommunity safety initiatives and on establishing and/or improving health, sporting and culturalactivities. The impacts that have been noted are therefore less focused on economic outcomes andmore concentrated on social and community benefits. These include demonstrating that crime and re-offending rates were falling, the positive effects of environmental improvements and the degree towhich community groups were able to deliver projects within their own areas.

SRB Round 6 was characterised by returning to a strong focus on delivering economic outcomes.Evaluations focused on the achievement of the core RDA outputs and the extent to which leveragehad been generated. Where positive economic outcomes had been noted, these outcomes should beconsidered against a backdrop of increasing national economic prosperity at the time.

Although the majority of schemes addressed multiple themes, there are important sub-regionaldifferences. A number of schemes in Humber and North Yorkshire had objectives connected withaddressing the rural/urban divide. Both these sub-regions also had schemes with specific projectsfocused on increasing agriculture diversification. One of the largest schemes in South Yorkshire wasfocused on addressing issues associated with the formal coalfield areas.



With the exception of one scheme, partnership and inter-agency working has been described as a keystrength of the SRB programme in the region. There are examples of project managers workingacross projects to provide support when this was required. Partnership teams were considered tohave been proactive in developing positive working relationships to ensure that the relevant agencieswere engaged.

Particularly effective partnership arrangements were developed between Barnsley, Doncaster andRotherham SRB teams, which enabled them to deliver over 600 individual projects across the formerSouth Yorkshire coalfield areas.


On the whole, the evaluation evidence we have reviewed appears to indicate that programmemanagement was effective.

Some evaluations emphasised the point that the role of the programme manager was to drive projectsforward and lead, rather than to administer funding and monitor outputs. The majority of schemes hada similar governance structure that included an overall ‘Programme Board’, supported by sub ortheme-groups to focus on discrete activities alongside a Programme or Partnership Team. Someschemes recognised the need to provide training (project appraisal, for example) for Board Members,to enable them to discharge their duties effectively.

Ensuring that the Partnership Board remained balanced throughout the lifetime of a scheme wassometimes difficult. In some cases the seats for community or private sector representatives wereunfilled and in other cases it was thought that community representatives dominated the agenda.

There were two common factors that faced a number of schemes in relation to governance andmanagement. Often attendance at Partnership Boards waned towards the end of schemes. This wasthought to be because the majority of funding had been allocated and the key projects had beenthrough the appraisal process and were up and running. The second issue is in relation to temporarycontracts. A number of schemes had at least two programme managers in their lifetime, whichcaused continuity issues. This also caused issues between successive SRB programme Rounds, inthat lessons were not necessarily learnt and passed on.


Overall, community engagement has been a strength across the SRB programme in the region. Thisappears to especially be the case for Rounds 4 and 5. Evaluators and stakeholders agree thatcommunity engagement increased over the course of individual schemes and the SRB programme asa whole, developing from an initial focus on providing information through to real capacity buildingwithin individual communities.

There are isolated examples where consultation with the community was seen as weak, eitherbecause of a lack of representation via governance arrangements, a lack of breadth of engagementbeyond local councillors or a lack of knowledge and experience regarding community consultationtechniques.

Effective practice identified includes the establishment of a community panel or community focusgroups, encouraging community representatives to develop a Community Investment Prospectus andthe ‘Community Chest’ arrangements that were developed by a number of schemes as a mechanismto pump-prime community-managed project activities.


Strategic impact

The SRB investment was an effective catalyst for a wide range of post-SRB regional activity. Thecommunity engagement aspect and geographical focus was a key strength of the schemes. YF was atthe forefront of SRB programme activity, especially in relation to SRB Rounds 5 and 6, by setting thestrategic direction for the region and playing a leading role in drafting the national guidelines.

Experience of using SRB as a mechanism to focus on geographically-based programmes and workingin partnership with local authorities across the region is becoming increasingly prescient, due to theimplications of the Sub-National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration (SNR). YF is ina relatively strong position to benefit from the legacy left by SRB activity.

Leverage

As illustrated in Table 10.18, SRB investment was effectively used to lever in three times as muchinvestment from private sector and other public sector sources. This is a significant achievement.

At the ‘grass roots’ level, scheme and project managers became adept at aggregating differentfunding streams to ensure that the potential synergy of projects with similar objectives was maximised.Alignment with Objective 1 programme objectives in South Yorkshire proved to be more problematicand this is potentially a missed opportunity.

As we have already mentioned, there was an increasing focus on community engagement as the SRBprogramme progressed. Despite a significant amount of private sector leverage having beengenerated, effective engagement of private sector partners in the SRB process appears to have beendifficult.

Table 10.18: Leverage in the Yorkshire and Humber Region (£m)


funding

Public sector

funding

Leverage ratio

Round 3 86.9 51.7 102.2 £1 : £1.80

Round 4 34.5 30.1 118.2 £1 : £4.30

Round 5 49.3 50.6 79.9 £1 : £2.60

Round 6 58.8 145.1 105.4 £1 : £4.30

Total 229.5 277.5 405.7 £1 : £3.00

Source: YF evaluation evidence


There are mixed perceptions regarding the legacy left by the SRB programme in the region. Somestakeholders commented that some programme and project managers were naïve in not addressingsustainability issues until near the end of schemes, resulting in an inability to sustain or embed projectactivity beyond the SRB funding timeframe. Other stakeholders point to examples where SRB activityled to the formation of Development Trusts, Community Associations and Community InterestCompanies and noted an increased capacity and ability of the ‘Third Sector’ to effectively delivercommunity services. Continuation of project activity was more likely where SRB left a physical legacyand the capital asset was being maintained by an appropriate body.

There were a number of examples where project activity was taken forward by other partners, orwhere continuation funding was secured. Some schemes were fortunate in that delivery of theirprojects coincided with policy developments that led to a natural mainstreaming of activity.


Value for money



The strengths and weaknesses identified by evaluators and stakeholders tend to be scheme-specificand often include the identification of a particular theme or project. However, there are some commonfeatures across the four SRB Rounds that can be drawn out.

The three most common strengths identified have been achievement/over achievement of outputforecasts (including leverage), partnership working and community engagement.

Identification of weaknesses tended to focus on projects that failed or were difficult to deliver.However, there was a common thread around the scope of activities being too wide, either ingeographical terms or in relation to having too many themes or objectives. Whilst it is admirable forschemes to be ambitious, for some schemes a narrower focus might have been more effective.

Conclusions

The general consensus of evaluators was that all of the schemes that were reviewed were eitherpartially or largely successful. This view stems from the achievement, and in some cases, substantialoverachievement of RDA core, other economic and other non-economic outputs, with under-performance only recorded for six out of the sixty-three output categories.

South Yorkshire, and to a lesser extent, West Yorkshire were the main beneficiaries of SRB activity inthe region. This suggests that funding was effectively targeted at the sub-regions with the highestnumber of most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs).

When leverage is factored in, there were eight schemes that invested over £40 million each within theregion. The largest two schemes, Regen 2000 in Bradford and Aire Valley in Leeds, were worth justunder a quarter of a billion pounds. A substantial number of outputs were delivered by a relativelysmall number of large schemes.

The SRB Round 3 programme was largely focused on large-scale capital projects. Subsequentprogrammes focused more on engaging communities, culminating in the focus on capacity buildingwithin communities in Round 5. The final programme (Round 6) focused on delivering core RDAoutputs.

With minor exceptions, partnership development, community development, governance andprogramme management were considered by evaluators and stakeholders to have been effective.Whilst the views regarding the sustainability of SRB schemes were more mixed, SRB investmentacted as a catalyst for a wide range of post-SRB activity.


11 Summary and conclusions

Introduction

This meta-evaluation has been a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations of SRB schemes,which have been collated and analysed to estimate the impact of SRB-funded schemes in Rounds 3to 6 across six regions. Wherever possible we have reviewed final evaluations; where this was notpossible we have reviewed other available evidence, such as interim evaluations, draft finalevaluations, programme reviews and monitoring and output data. We have reviewed evaluationevidence covering 60% of schemes in SRB Rounds 3 to 6 and 67% of SRB Rounds 3 to 6expenditure.

This final section pulls together some conclusions, themes and messages from the evaluationevidence we have reviewed.

SRB performance against targets

The primary aim of SRB was to enhance the quality of life of local people in areas of need, byreducing the gap between deprived areas and other areas and between different groups in society.SRB sought to achieve this by focusing specific resources on the diverse challenges faced by poorerneighbourhoods.

SRB schemes have delivered a wide range of economic and non-economic outputs, in diverse areassuch as employment, education, training, housing, community facilities, crime prevention, roadimprovements, volunteering and childcare. Output performance across the sixty-three outputcategories defined by CLG was generally good in the evidence that we reviewed, with targets largelybeing achieved. However, we have recorded some wide variations in performance to target. Some ofthe evaluations themselves noted the difficulties that partnerships encountered in setting meaningfultargets across so many categories and in sometimes recording outputs accurately. We have notsought to verify target or output information in the evidence that we have received.

Across the six regions, output targets were met or exceeded for most of the six output categories thatcorrespond most closely to RDAs’ core outputs. As a result, the SRB programme created orsafeguarded 145,000 gross and over 60,000 net jobs across the six regions. In net terms, around150,000 people obtained qualifications through training schemes that took place as a result of SRB.Over 3,000 additional new businesses that were supported by SRB survived for at least one year.Over 3,000 additional hectares of land were improved or reclaimed for development and almost 900community enterprises were established.

The scale of these outputs is apparent when they are set alongside the RDAs’ core (gross) outputsbetween 2002/03 and 2006/07. Although there are limitations associated with the comparison, theevidence shows the significant role that SRB played in helping RDAs meet some of their core outputtargets. For example, the six RDAs created or safeguarded just over 300,000 jobs between 2002/03and 2006/07; SRB Rounds 3 to 6 created or safeguarded 145,000 jobs.

In addition to delivering on their output targets, SRB schemes successfully leveraged significant otherpublic and private funds to regeneration projects. Across the schemes in the six regions for which we


identified leverage information, we found that £1,027 million of SRB spend had levered in £1,044million of private sector funding and £1,654 million of public sector funding. This means that every £1of SRB spending levered in an additional £2.63 of funding from public and private sources. Whilst theleveraged public sector funds may well have been spent anyway, the SRB programme meant that thismoney was directed on local-level projects in the poorest areas.

Impact of SRB schemes

Assessing the impact of SRB spend at either the local or, in particular, the regional level in a waywhich is consistent with the requirements of the Impact Evaluation Framework (IEF) has been achallenge for several important reasons.

First, many of the evaluations reviewed referred to the lack of baseline data from which it would bepossible to judge impact. We have been totally dependent on the quality and quantity of theevaluation evidence we have received. In practice, the evaluation evidence has proven to beconsistently poor when assessed against the principles contained within the IEF, although werecognise that these principles were defined well after the schemes started – only a very small numberof evaluations have considered additionality, net outputs and overall outcomes, and the vast majorityhave said very little about impact.

Second, the schemes were largely designed specifically to deliver impacts at a local level. We are,therefore, trying to gain a sense of the regional picture by aggregating together the results of a seriesof local evaluations, without having the necessary information that would enable us to assess regional-level factors such as intra-regional displacement.

Despite these challenges, some key themes around impact have emerged from the evidence we havereviewed. Some reports noted an increase in the self-confidence, self-esteem and skills base of theindividuals who participated in SRB projects; others reported an increased awareness of policingissues, a reduced fear of crime and increased feelings of community safety.

Other impacts recorded across the localities included an increase in those attending full-timeeducation; a reduction in instances of domestic abuse; increased youth participation in sportingactivities; reduced unemployment and benefit claimant counts; increased access to, and participationin, education, employment and business opportunities from ethnic minority groups; environmentalimprovements; and increases in the number and usage of community facilities.

The scale and range of the gross outputs recorded demonstrate that SRB schemes had a notableimpact on communities. This suggests that the difference that communities will have felt from thecreation of many thousands of jobs, from the businesses that were supported, the people that weretrained, the houses that were built or improved, the community facilities that were built, the land thatwas reclaimed, the crime and safety initiatives that took place and the areas that were regenerated islikely to have been significant. Given the absence of wider evidence, it is difficult to say much moreabout the difference that the SRB programme has made because the evaluation evidence alone isgenerally too weak. Even those reports which sought to link SRB outputs to wider socio-economictrends noted the difficulties in linking SRB inputs to impacts.

Value for money

This report does not attempt to make any value for money judgements about SRB spending. SRBschemes were set up to achieve a variety of objectives, some of which were economic but many ofwhich were not. In order to undertake a meaningful assessment of value for money, it is important torecognise the diversity of outputs and impacts and relate them to the relevant inputs.

The evaluations we have reviewed do not provide the data needed to relate specific outputs toparticular elements of expenditure, not least because expenditure that went towards achievingeconomic objectives sometimes also went towards achieving environmental or social objectives. This


means we cannot compare economic outputs with the expenditure responsible for generating theseoutputs because the evaluation evidence we have seen does not provide the basis for such ananalysis. Without this data we are not able to compare inputs (expenditure) with the relevant outputson a disaggregated basis.

The alternative would be to compare overall bundles of expenditure at the individual programme levelwith bundles of programme outputs. In practice, however, it is difficult to express the social andenvironmental outputs of SRB schemes in terms of incremental value added. Consequently, webelieve that it would also be potentially inappropriate and misleading to seek to assess value formoney of SRB at an aggregate level. We have, therefore, not undertaken a value for moneycalculation across the SRB programme.

Delivery approach

A central tenet of SRB’s delivery approach was the development of local partnerships which were ableto develop schemes specifically tailored to local circumstances. This devolution of responsibility foradministering funds to local partnerships allowed for a more flexible and innovative approach to locallevel regeneration.

Partnerships had successes and failures, as did schemes themselves. Where partnerships workedwell there was often an appropriate balance of public, private and community representation onpartnership boards. Even when partnerships were successful, there was often a time delay before thepartnership worked effectively. Many partnerships took time and resources to establish and oftenendured a challenging start before maturing into competent oversight bodies. Getting partnerships tosurvive the duration of the scheme also appears to have been a challenge – many evaluations refer tothe waning enthusiasm of some board members once key scheme decisions had been made. Inmany cases partnerships were set up specifically to bid for and administer SRB funding. How manypartnerships survived post-SRB is unknown.

Where partnerships were not so successful, there were often difficulties in getting the formal structuresfunctioning smoothly and in getting the balance of participation right. Engaging with the private sectorwas a consistent challenge for partnerships – the reported bureaucracy of SRB processes may nothave helped in this regard – and there was a tendency for partnerships to be dominated by public andvoluntary sector groups.

SRB funded a huge variety of projects, from very small-scale training programmes through to majorurban regeneration projects. This approach proved to be both a strength and a weakness. On theone hand it allowed local partnerships to target funds at those problems specific to their areas.However, it also meant that SRB as a spending stream arguably at times lacked coherence and focus.

Performance management

The SRB performance management approach was, with hindsight, very bureaucratic. Given thediffering quality of much of the evaluation evidence we reviewed, the effectiveness of the approach toperformance management is also questionable. It appears from the evaluation evidence that a lot oftime was spent counting and verifying the output claims against sixty-three separate output categories.The plethora of output categories used were widely recognised by partners as having been unwieldy.

Aside from the time consuming and bureaucratic nature of performance management, the emphasison counting so many outputs appears to have detracted from a widespread, meaningful considerationof outcomes. Many evaluations refer to the lack of baseline data with which to judge the impacts ofschemes.

Although it is interesting and useful to have so much output data, it is only when it is placed in thecontext of outcomes and impacts that the data is really valuable. The absence of emphasis onmonitoring and recording outcomes must therefore be seen as a real weakness of the SRB


performance management approach. The strong emphasis of SRB on gross outputs has alsoimpacted significantly on this meta-evaluation – as most SRB schemes focused heavily on deliveringtheir gross outputs instead of monitoring outcomes and impacts, so our meta-evaluation, whichreflects the evaluation evidence we have received, is able to say very considerably more on outputsthan it can about outcomes or impacts.

Mainstreaming and legacy

Understanding the legacy of SRB within the context of this work has been difficult. Final evaluationreports were normally completed before schemes were completed, and there was little evidence onthe legacy of SRB in the evaluations we reviewed.

SRB was successful in the sense that it enabled more resources to be spent on deprived areas duringthe lifetime of the programme. However, the extent to which it was able to genuinely bendmainstream funding sources on a permanent basis is less clear.

There was evidence that SRB had funded successful projects, which had influenced the waymainstream services were delivered and/or were incorporated into mainstream funding streams.Projects were very often targeted at a small local geography and were not necessarily designed to bescaled up to a wider geography. It is, therefore, difficult to know if and how non-SRB areas havebenefited from SRB schemes.

In terms of delivery mechanisms, we do not know how many partnerships survived post-SRB and forhow long. The evaluation evidence suggested that some partnerships were set to continue andevolve at their scheme’s end, by becoming stand-alone entities that could provide a strategic lead forthe location’s regeneration activities. However, other evaluations noted that some partnerships did notcontemplate an existence beyond SRB until the scheme was approaching its end, when both time andresources were short.

Despite some notable exceptions, there appears to be limited evidence of the mainstreaming of SRBprojects on the whole. This is not entirely surprising, given that mainstreaming was not a coreobjective of SRB.

Conclusions

With so many schemes – over 1,000 in total, and almost 500 across the six participating RDAs inRounds 3 to 6 – there are bound to have been successes and failures. The evidence we havereviewed suggests that many of the SRB schemes that were deemed by evaluators to have beensuccessful were considered to be meeting specific needs, were delivered in a coherent and cohesiveway, had good project appraisal processes, had strong and committed leadership and had an effectiveBoard containing active and representative participation from relevant sectors of the community.

Where schemes didn’t work so well, the evidence suggests that a variety of reasons contributed tothose difficulties. These include: recruitment difficulties and a lack of staff continuity; a lack of trainingto help Board members understand and discharge their duties effectively; a failure to attract or retainrepresentative involvement from all sections of the community, especially the private sector; a failureto engage with the section(s) of the community that the scheme was set up to benefit; a geographicalfocus that was too wide; and difficulties in balancing the aims and objectives of different interestgroups in the partnership.

Some of the lessons from SRB have no doubt already been learnt, given the time that has elapsedsince many SRB schemes ended. The amount that we can say about the success or otherwise ofschemes is necessarily limited by the amount we know about schemes’ outcomes and impacts.Nevertheless, some principles have emerged from the SRB evidence that are still relevant today – theneed to ensure that projects are focused, appropriately structured, achieve buy-in from relevantsectors of the local community where appropriate, are delivered in a joined-up way and are not


encumbered by overburdening bureaucracy are lessons that will resonate meaningfully, regardless ofelapsed time or of subsequent developments in national or regional policy.


Appendix A – Complete list ofRounds 3-6 SRB schemes inparticipating RDAs

SRB Scheme Region Round

Bedford - Cauldwell & Kingsbrook Regeneration Eastern Region 3

Herts Youth Life Chances Eastern Region 3

Kirkley Regeneration Initiative, Lowestoft Eastern Region 3

Peterborough - Ethnic Minorities Housing Advisor Eastern Region 3

Regenerating West Thetford Eastern Region 3

Suffolk Prosper Eastern Region 3

Tilbury Port Eastern Region 3

Watford & SW Herts Partnership Group Eastern Region 3

Working Communities Partnership - Shoeburyness, Southend Eastern Region 3

Bexley: Investing in Belvedere London 3

Bow Back Rivers Development Stately London 3

Bridging the Gap, Redbridge London 3

Challenging Racial Harassment in Newham London 3

Children In The City London 3

Cross River Partnership 1996 London 3

Crystal Palace - Restoring The Vision London 3

Delivering London TECS' Inward Investment Offer London 3

Education and Employability in East London London 3

Feltham: From Legacy to Opportunity London 3

Fieldway: Partnerships For The Future, Croydon London 3

Funk - Fighting Unemployment In N. Kensington London 3

Green Networks: A West London Pilot London 3

Hackney Wick Regeneration London 3

Haggerston Partnership: Connecting Regeneration London 3

Haringey Heartlands London 3

Inner London: Job Creation Programme London 3

Kings Cross Youth Club Partnership London 3

Lambeth and Southwark: Working for Offenders London 3

Lambeth and Tower Hamlets: Mobile Arts and Technology London 3


Project

Lambeth: Roots and Shoots Environmental Partnership London 3

Lewisham: Bridging the Gap London 3

London's Canals And River Corridors London 3

Merton: Pollards Hill Estate London 3

Newham: Health Fit For Work London 3

North & East London Waste Minimisation Project London 3

North Kensington: Community Resistance Against SubstanceHarm

London 3

NW London Refugee Employment & Training Agency London 3

Once in 1000 Years: Opportunities in Greenwich London 3

Reading Recovery In Hillingdon London 3

Regenerating Western Park Royal London 3

Regeneration for Bromley By Bow London 3

Skills For The Millennium in Thames Gateway London 3

South London Manufacturing Challenge London 3

Southall Regeneration Partnership London 3

Southwark: Chaucer Community Regeneration Project London 3

Southwark: London's Larder London 3

Stockley Park Transport Hub London 3

Stratford: A Strategy For Schools London 3

Trafalgar Square 2000 London 3

Unlocking London's Potential London 3

Virtual Learning And Access Community London 3

Wandsworth Housing Association: Shortlife "Plus" (PilotInitiative)

London 3

Wandsworth Town - A New Urban Centre London 3

West Euston London 3

West London Information & Communications London 3

West Of The Borough - LB Tower Hamlets London 3

White City Regeneration London 3

Building People's Potential for Today and Tomorrow,Macclesfield

North West 3

Burnley - Dordrecht Initiative North West 3

Bury - Developing The Leading Edge North West 3

Crime Prevention : Stepping Out North West 3

Dismantling Barriers For Black And Ethnic MinorityCommunities - Progress Trust - Manchester

North West 3

East Lancashire Partnership North West 3

Facing The Future Together - Farnworth/Little Hulton North West 3

Focus On Fleetwood North West 3

Granby / Toxteth Jobs & Enterprise North West 3

Greater Deepdale Regeneration - Preston North West 3

Greater Manchester Drug Action Partnership North West 3


Guided Steps to Lifetime Learning North West 3

Heart of the Port - Ellesmere Port North West 3

Higher Skills For Business North West 3

In The Market Place - Stockport North West 3

Interest Rate Rebate Scheme North West 3

Investing in Tomorrow's Citizens - Wigan North West 3

Lancashire Tourism Partnership North West 3

Liverpool East North West 3

Manchester City Council - Stockport Road Corridor Initiative North West 3

Manchester City Council - The Wythenshawe Initiative North West 3

Manchester TEC LTD - 14-19 Youth Strategy In The TECArea

North West 3

Merseyside: New Solutions, Further Actions North West 3

Merseyside: Reach Out To Parents North West 3

Netherley Valley North West 3

New Wallasey North West 3

People To The Fore - Regeneration of Glodwick North West 3

Regeneration In West Chester North West 3

Salterbeck Community Regeneration - Workington Allerdale North West 3

Skelmersdale North West 3

Southport North West 3

The Crewe Challenge North West 3

Towards A Learning Community - Hattersley, Tameside North West 3

ADUR Industry First South East 3

Barton Community Regeneration South East 3

Believing In Folkestone South East 3

Building For The Future In The Thames Valley South East 3

Castlefield Challenge South East 3

Community Development, Thanington South East 3

Competing For Jobs And People, Hastings South East 3

East Reading Area Partnership South East 3

Education Achievement Programme - Portsmouth and SouthEast Hampshire

South East 3

Facing the Future: Thanet's Regeneration Agenda South East 3

Former East Kent Coalfield South East 3

Littlehampton 2000 South East 3

Medway Ruler South East 3

North West Kent Training & Job Link South East 3

Regenerating Brighton And Hove South East 3

Slough New Generation South East 3

The Sheerwater and Maybury Partnership South East 3

West Reading Black Community Development Project South East 3

Wolverton Works South East 3

Bridging the Gap, South Gloucestershire and Bristol South West 3


Cheltenham: ST. Pauls (Lower High St) Renewal Area South West 3

Northern ARC, Bristol South West 3

Norton/Radstock, Somerset: Rural Regeneration South West 3

Plymouth Turning the Tide South West 3

Restormel, Cornwall : Community Housing EmploymentEnvironment Regeneration Scheme, (CHEERS)

South West 3

Rural Action For The Development of Information,Communication, Advice and Learning (RADICAL), NorthCornwall

South West 3

Smart Isles West, Region Wide South West 3

Swindon: Building On Success South West 3

Tidworth Community Regeneration, Wiltshire South West 3

Torridge & North Devon : Young People South West 3

Weston-Super-Mare : Unlocking Potential South West 3

Weymouth: Waterside Regeneration South West 3

Yeovil : Stepping Towards Enterprise South West 3

Back On Track Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Barton Upon Humber Regeneration Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Building A Better Bridlington Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Building On Achievement, Dearne Valley Partnership Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Building Sustainable Business And Communities, Doncaster Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Building The Future- Investing In Youth Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Dalton, Rawthorpe & Moldgreen, Huddersfield Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Foundations For A Competitive Economy Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Highway To Success, Barnsley Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Newlands Integrated Regeneration Strategy Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Partnership With Young People, Leeds Yorkshire And The Humber 3

River Hull Corridor, Phase 1 : Heartlands Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Sheffield, Manor And Castle Yorkshire And The Humber 3

The Sowerby Bridge Yorkshire And The Humber 3

West Yorkshire Community Work Training Group Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Young People: Sharing Rotherham's Future Yorkshire And The Humber 3

Building on the Foundations, Kings Lynn Eastern Region 4

Learning City, Norwich Eastern Region 4

Enhance, Shoeburyness Eastern Region 4

Regeneration through Youth, Harlow Eastern Region 4

Luton Dunstable Eastern Region 4

Borehamwood Eastern Region 4

Regenerating Heritage Coast, Suffolk Eastern Region 4

A Leadership Centre for London London 4

Aylesbury Plus Initiative, Southwark London 4

Building a Future in North West London London 4

Building on Excellence, Westminster London 4

City Fringe Phase 2 - Bridging the Gap London 4


Coin Street Centre, Lambeth and Southwark London 4

Community Safety Dimension for Thames Gateway London 4

Digital Learning Ring London 4

East Battersea Power House London 4

Focus Central London: Trading Places London 4

Futures Gateway, Islington and Hackney London 4

Keys to Learning, Lambeth London 4

Lea Side, Tower Hamlets London 4

London East TEC: London Accord London 4

Missing Links: Finsbury Park Community Trust London 4

Newham and Waltham Forest London 4

Realising the Potential of North Southwark London 4

Safe in the City London 4

Take Another Look at Abbey Wood and Thamesmead London 4

Tomorrow's City, Stratford London 4

Tottenham Futures London 4

Young People, Drugs & Crime: Camden & Islington London 4

Halewood A Partnership for Change, Knowsley North West 4

New Opportunities on Wirral North West 4

Primary Step, Liverpool North West 4

Parr Partnership, St Helens North West 4

Sustainable Development & Employment Opportunities North West 4

Expanding Horizons, Merseyside North West 4

Brinnington Community 2000, Stockport North West 4

Eastlink, Manchester and Tameside North West 4

Greater Manchester Probation Service North West 4

Kick Start for Jobs, Pendle North West 4

Opportunities for Excellence, Wigan North West 4

Partington/Carrington, Trafford North West 4

Positively Raffles, Carlisle North West 4

Realising the Benefits, Halton North West 4

Regeneration of Maryport, Allerdale North West 4

River Valleys Action, Manchester and Cheshire North West 4

The Learning Town, Bolton North West 4

The TREE Project, Warrington North West 4

Welfare to Green Work, Manchester and Cheshire North West 4

Welfare to Work Plus, Oldham North West 4

Winsford into Work, Vale Royal North West 4

A Catalyst for Business and Skills Growth, Bexhill South East 4

Believing in Folkestone South East 4

Early Years Intervention, Oxford and Slough South East 4

East Reading Partnership South East 4

Isle of Wight South East 4


Kent Initiative On Drugs South East 4

North Kent Gateway to Opportunity South East 4

Partnership for Youth, Oxford South East 4

People at the Centre of Slough South East 4

Regenerating Brighton and Hove South East 4

Tackling Racial Harassment in Oxford South East 4

Thanet Talent South East 4

Towards a Safer Community, Hastings South East 4

Well Spent Youth, Portsmouth & Havant South East 4

Barnstaple South West 4

Dorset Country Towns South West 4

HOPE for Youth in Exeter South West 4

Pivotal Crime Points Drugs Initiative, Gloucestershire South West 4

Plymouth 2000 South West 4

Promoting Real Opportunities by Mentoring in Somerset South West 4

Regeneration of Gloucestershire Market Towns South West 4

Taunton East Action South West 4

The West Cornwall Employment Programme South West 4

Youth Owning Urban Regeneration, Bristol South West 4

A New Deal for Barnsley Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Building on the Foundations, Goole Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Community Regeneration Partnerships, Sheffield Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Facing the Challenge, Bradford Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Fresh Aire, Wakefield Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Investing in the Community, Leeds Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Learning Youth and Using our Abilities, Hull Yorkshire and the Humber 4

New York Riverside, Rotherham Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Opportunities for All, Dearne Valley Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Regeneration of the Catterick Garrison Communities Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Routes to Employment in North Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 4

The Filey Bay Regeneration Initiative Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Valuing Education, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes Yorkshire and the Humber 4

Westcliff & Riddings Regeneration, Scunthorpe Yorkshire and the Humber 4

A Brighter Future for East Colchester Eastern Region 5

A Neighbour Regeneration Strategy for Stevenage Eastern Region 5

Cobholm & Lichfield Community Partnership, Great Yarmouth Eastern Region 5

Community and Voluntary Forum for the Eastern Region Eastern Region 5

Crossbow 1, Southend on Sea Eastern Region 5

Regenerating Eastern Region 5

Regenerating Communities in Bedford Core Eastern Region 5

South Ockendon Regeneration Training Education Delivery Eastern Region 5

Suffolk Market Towns Regeneration Eastern Region 5


Tilbury PORT II Eastern Region 5

Wisbech Champions Partnership Eastern Region 5

A New Future for Finsbury Park London 5

Action Acton: From the Margins to the Mainstream London 5

Bridging The Divides London 5

Bridging the Gap London 5

Building Sustainable Communities: Forest Gate and Plaistow London 5

Changing Practices: North West London TEC London 5

Connecting Communities London 5

Connecting Stockwell London 5

Co-ordinating the Millennium in London London 5

Cray Valley Regeneration London 5

Cross River Communities London 5

Downham Pride: Aiming Higher for Downham London 5

East London & Lee Valley Pathways Development Project London 5

Elephant Links London 5

Engineering a Competitive Future at the Heart of ThamesGateway

London 5

Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Capacity Building Programme London 5

From Dependency to Work, Pan-London London 5

Getting London Working London 5

Growing Involvement London 5

Isle of Dogs Confident Communities Programme London 5

It’s Not Your Skills.......It’s Your Attitude London 5

L’Ouverture - Widening Participation in Education andLearning

London 5

London Credit Union Support Programme London 5

London New Business Creation London 5

Mile End Park London 5

New Commitment to Kilburn London 5

New Horizons for Harold Hill London 5

New Life For Paddington London 5

New Opportunities for Walthamstow London 5

Off the Streets and into Work London 5

Safe Routes to School: Safe Roots for Communities London 5

Silwood Regeneration London 5

South Greenwich: Building New Links London 5

The Health Ladder to Social Inclusion: Redbridge andWaltham Forest

London 5

The London Social Inclusion Growth Fund London 5

Thresholds Partnership Bid London 5

Vauxhall-all-Together Now London 5

West Green Learning Neighbourhood London 5

2002 Commonwealth Games Economic and Social North West 5


Programme

Adswood & Bridgehall Community Partnership, Stockport North West 5

Atherton Building Communities (ABC) North West 5

Beacons for a Brighter Future - East Manchester North West 5

Blackburn Central - Investing in the Future North West 5

Building A Better Future, Macclesfield North West 5

Building Better Communities, Skelmersdale North West 5

Building Bridges, Barrow North West 5

Cleartor Moor Regeneration, Cumbria North West 5

Count me In, St Helens North West 5

Cumbria Rural Regeneration North West 5

East Bury Initiative North West 5

Enterprising Rural Communities, East Lancashire North West 5

Focus for Change, Halton North West 5

Integrating and Sustaining Communities, Salford North West 5

Liverpool City Centre North West 5

Luneside Regeneration, Lancaster North West 5

Northwood into the Millennium, Knowsley North West 5

Opening Doors, Unlocking Opportunities - Pendle North West 5

Opportunity and Inclusion, Rochdale North West 5

Positive Alternatives for Young People: Old Trafford North West 5

Speke Garston Partnership North West 5

Tameside: New Opportunities for Communities North West 5

Believing in Folkestone South East 5

Community Based Capacity Building in Blackbird Leys, Oxford South East 5

Connecting Communities, Isle of Thanet South East 5

Developing Successful Cohesive Communities, Southampton South East 5

Devonshire Re Bourne, Eastbourne South East 5

East Kent Coalfield Regeneration Programme South East 5

East Oxford Action South East 5

Engaging the Local Community, Hastings South East 5

Enterprising Leigh Park, Havant South East 5

Gateways to Community Success, Thames Gateway South East 5

Hailsham East Area Renewal (H.E.A.R.) South East 5

Island Inclusive, Isle of Wight South East 5

Kent Initiative on Drugs (KID 5) South East 5

Map Partnership - Linking Us Together, Reading South East 5

Network for the Regeneration of Communities in South EastEngland

South East 5

Northgate Community Regeneration, Canterbury South East 5

Promoting Social Inclusion, Brighton & Hove South East 5

Regenerating the Heart of Portsmouth South East 5

Rye Bay Renaissance South East 5


Simply Stoke, Slough South East 5

South Kent Rural Development Area Partnership South East 5

Spotlight On Bletchley, Milton Keynes South East 5

Stanhope - Towards a Sense of Place, Ashford South East 5

Swale Education & Vocational Training Programme South East 5

“CHANGE” in Gloucestershire South West 5

Engage West Cornwall South West 5

Gloucester “Challenging Attitudes” Partnership South West 5

New Deal for Torbay South West 5

Weymouth & Portland Choices Programme South West 5

Working Together for a Better Future, Plymouth South West 5

Working Together for Change, Hartcliffe & Withywood South West 5

Working With the Next Generation, Pill South West 5

A Platform For Change, Kirklees Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Better Neighbourhoods and Confident Communities, Leeds Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Calderdale Communities Of The Future Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Communities in Partnership North Clifton Regeneration Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Creating an Inclusive and Prosperous City, Sheffield Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Hemsworth Coalfield Partnership, Wakefield Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Highfield Community Action, Bradford Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Social & Economic Regeneration of Ryedale Yorkshire and the Humber 5

South Yorkshire Coalfield Partnership Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Stocksbridge’s Future, Sheffield Yorkshire and the Humber 5

The Falsgrave Community Investment Initiative Yorkshire and the Humber 5

West Yorkshire Reach Out Partnership Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Widening Horizons - Withernsea & Southern Holderness Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Yorkshire and Humber Coastal Tourism Initiative Yorkshire and the Humber 5

Constructing Communities Basildon Five Links Eastern Region 6

Crossbow 2 - Learning for Living Southend on Sea Eastern Region 6

Get Sorted - Suffolk Association of VoluntaryOrganisations(SAVO)

Eastern Region 6

Growing Together, Thetford, the Brecks and Brandon Eastern Region 6

Harlow Community Connections Eastern Region 6

Lowestoft into Work Eastern Region 6

Luton Dunstable- Making a Difference Eastern Region 6

Oxmoor Opportunities, Huntingdon Eastern Region 6

People at the Centre of Ipswich Eastern Region 6

The Community Energy Sudbury Eastern Region 6

Towards a Cohesive Learning Strategy for Great Yarmouth Eastern Region 6

Vange New Skills Project, Basildon Eastern Region 6

Waltham Cross Economic Regeneration Eastern Region 6

Welwyn Hatfield Capacity Building Eastern Region 6


Working Together - Suffolk Rural Eastern Region 6

Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey Eastern Region 6

A Model for Best Practice: Joined Up Regeneration in theThames Gateway

London 6

A New Manor, Woodberry Down, Stamford Hill London 6

Access to Excellence for Newham’s Communities London 6

Access to Training for Visually Impaired People, Pan-London London 6

All Change @ Camden Central London 6

Centre of Expertise for Manufacturing, Thames gateway andLee Valley

London 6

Changing Places, Changing London Lives London 6

Children and Neighbourhoods in London London 6

Closing the Childcare Gap, Stratford London 6

Communities in Business, Poplar & Leaside London 6

Community Courthouse Initiative, Pan-London London 6

Community Involvement Across the London Region London 6

Delivering London’s Manufacturing in Thames Gateway South London 6

Destination Wembley Access to Opportunities London 6

Digital Learning Ring: The Next Generation, Pan-London London 6

Enterprise for Communities, Pan-London London 6

From Disadvantage to Opportunity, Croydon London 6

From Hardcore Homeless into Work, Pan-London London 6

Get Set for Citizenship, New Cross and Deptford London 6

H2R Hard to Reach Including a Community, Harlesden London 6

Health Benefits Regeneration, Greenwich London 6

Joining Up Northumberland Park, Tottenham London 6

Keep London Working London 6

London Civic Forum Reconnecting London London 6

London South Central Connections, Vauxhall London 6

Manufacturing Investment and Workforce Development,Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Thurrock

London 6

More London Bridge: More Opportunities for Residents andEmployees/ers, London Bridge

London 6

New Beginnings New Settlements, Tower Hamlets London 6

Opportunity Into Reality: A New Waterloo London 6

Park Royal Connect London 6

Positive Futures, Positive Lives, Pan-London London 6

Prosperity and Pride in Peckham London 6

Putting New Heart into Grahame Park, Barnet London 6

Raising our Sights: New Ambitions for Young People inLambeth

London 6

Raising the Dalgarno, North Kensington London 6

Re-engineering Secondary Materials for the Thames Gateway London 6

Renewal Turning Adversity into Opportunity for Refugees andRecent Arrivals in West London, Ealing, Hammersmith and

London 6


Hounslow

Southwark’s Campaign Against Hate Crimes London 6

Stonebridge Area Youth Project London 6

The Art of Regeneration, North Lewisham and WestGreenwich

London 6

The Circle Initiative, Central London London 6

The Grid for Creative London London 6

The Job Opportunities Programme, Opening the Door ofOpportunity for the Black and other Ethnic MinorityCommunities, Pan-London

London 6

Tree-mendous Londoners, Whitechapel, Elephant and Castleand Stockwell

London 6

Urban Renaissance in Lewisham London 6

Young People Agents for Change, Tooting London 6

Removing Barriers/Creating Opportunities in Blackpool North West 6

Building Sustainable Community achieving Social Inclusion,Bolton

North West 6

Creating Confidence in Burnley's Communities North West 6

Liverpool City Centre North West 6

Oldham’s Route to Renaissance North West 6

Preston's Winning Aven Central North West 6

South Sefton North West 6

Wirral Waterfront North West 6

The People of Accrington and Church Together, Hyndburn North West 6

The Time is Now for Nelson, Pendle North West 6

Linking Life Chances in Tameside North West 6

Worsley Mesnes - "Worsley Mesnes Community Gains",Wigan

North West 6

Workington Regeneration North West 6

Merseyside Third Technology Centre North West 6

Building a Better Bacup, Rossendale North West 6

Distinctly Cumbrian, rural Cumbria North West 6

Changing East Lancashire 2 North West 6

Investing in a Sustainable Competitive Future for the NorthWest

North West 6

South Whitehaven North West 6

New Commitment to Regeneration in West Cumbria - Makingit Happen

North West 6

Able to do Business, Maidstone South East 6

Coastal Renaissance in East Sussex South East 6

Connecting Communities: Weacock & Rowner Compact,Gosport

South East 6

Connecting Paulsgrove and Wymering, Portsmouth South East 6

Dover Urban Regeneration Programme South East 6

East Kent Strategic Area Framework South East 6

Hastings and St Leonards - A Sea Change South East 6


Herne Bay & Whitstable Coastal Regeneration Programme South East 6

Medway Innovation Centre, Medway Towns South East 6

North Kent Forward South East 6

Pooling out Resources: Changing Course and Culture inEastbourne

South East 6

Promoting Regional Race Equality and Social Inclusion-PRREDASI

South East 6

Promoting Social Inclusion, Brighton & Hove South East 6

Rural Towns - Rural Life, SE rural Market Towns South East 6

Ryde 2000, Isle of Wight South East 6

Southampton Community Futures South East 6

Swanley - People First South East 6

Thames Valley Social Enterprise South East 6

Thanet Horizons South East 6

The Community Development and Training Partnership, SERegion

South East 6

Turning the Tide : A Bright Coastal Future, W Sussex Coastal South East 6

Bath - Improving Communities Together South West 6

Bid for Sutton Ward, Plymouth South West 6

Boscombe, A Working Community, Bournemouth South West 6

Bringing Bristol Together South West 6

Bringing Glastonbury Together South West 6

Capacity Building in South Somerset Market Towns South West 6

Communities First in Rural Somerset, Phase II South West 6

Dorset Country Towns South West 6

Forest of Dean Young People's Project South West 6

Gloucester Challenging Attitudes South West 6

Hamp for Hamp, Sedgemoor South West 6

Parks and Walcot East Regeneration, Swindon South West 6

Regeneration of South Western Bridport South West 6

Social Inclusion Groups & Networks (SIGN), Cornwall & Islesof Scilly

South West 6

Towards a Regional Infrastructure, South West South West 6

Weston-super-Mare - Together we can make a Difference South West 6

Wiltshire Market Towns STAR Project South West 6

Wonford Regeneration Partnership, Exeter South West 6

Bradford Regeneration 2000 Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Community North Forum (Sheffield) Regeneration Plan Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Credit Union Regional Resource, Yorkshire & Humber Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Experiencing Enterprise, Barnsley, Bradford, Hull, NorthYorkshire

Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Hull - Local Communities, Social Inclusion and the RegionalEconomy


Humber Works Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Leeds - Aire Valley Employment Area Yorkshire and the Humber 6


North Wakefield - Working on Cold Coal Yorkshire and the Humber 6

North Yorkshire - Developing Futures for Community andAgricultural Regen.


Putting the Heart back into Sheffield Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Regen - Halifax - 2000 Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Regenerating North East Lincolnshire Yorkshire and the Humber 6

RESURGO North Lincolnshire Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Ripon Moving Forward, Ripon City Yorkshire and the Humber 6

Royds Community Enterprise Park - Purpose Built and Secureby Design, Bradford


Sheffield - Netherthorpe & Upperthorpe SustainableRegeneration


South Yorkshire Black Communities Development Programme Yorkshire and the Humber 6

South Yorkshire Coalfield - A New Economy for the 21st

CenturyYorkshire and the Humber 6

Spirit of Staithes Regeneration Initiative, North Yorkshire Yorkshire and the Humber 6


Appendix B – List of evaluationsreviewed

SRB Scheme Region

A Brighter Future for East Colchester Eastern Region

A Neighbourhood Regeneration Strategy for Stevenage Eastern Region

Borehamwood Eastern Region

Building on the Foundations, Kings Lynn Eastern Region

Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey Eastern Region

Cobholm & Lichfield Community Partnership, GreatYarmouth

Eastern Region

Community & Voluntary Forum for the Eastern Region(COVER)

Eastern Region

Constructing Communities Basildon Five Links Eastern Region

Harlow Community Connections Eastern Region

Herts Youth Life Chances Eastern Region

Kirkley Regeneration Initiative, Lowestoft Eastern Region

Learning City, Norwich Eastern Region

Lowestoft into work Eastern Region

Luton Dunstable Eastern Region

People at the Centre of Ipswich Eastern Region

Regenerating Heritage Coast, Suffolk Eastern Region

Regenerating Peterborough Eastern Region

South Ockendon Regeneration Training EducationDelivery

Eastern Region

The Community Energy Sudbury Eastern Region

Tilbury Port Eastern Region

Vange New Skills Project, Basildon Eastern Region

Waltham Cross Economic Regeneration Eastern Region

Watford & SW Herts Partnership Group Eastern Region

Welwyn Hatfield Capacity Building Eastern Region

Wisbech Eastern Region

Working Together - Suffolk Rural Eastern Region

A New Future for Finsbury Park London

A New Manor, Woodberry Down, Stamford Hill London

Access to Excellence for Newham’s Communities London


Access to Training for Visually Impaired People, Pan-London

London

Action Acton: From the Margins to the Mainstream London

All Change @ Camden Central London

Young People Agents for Change, Tooting London

Bexley: Investing in Belvedere London

Bridging The Divides London

Bridging the Gap London

Bridging the Gap, Redbridge London

Building a Future in North West London London

Building on Excellence, Westminster London

Building Sustainable Communities: Forest Gate andPlaistow

London

Centre of Expertise for Manufacturing, Thamesgateway and Lee Valley

London

Changing Places, Changing London Lives London

Changing Practices: North West London TEC London

Children and Neighbourhoods in London London

Children In The City London

City Fringe Phase 2 - Bridging the Gap London

Closing the Childcare Gap, Stratford London

Communities in Business, Poplar & Leaside London

Community Involvement Across the London Region London

Community Safety Dimension for Thames Gateway London

Connecting Communities London

Connecting Stockwell London

Cray Valley Regeneration London

Cross River Communities London

Cross River Partnership 1996 London

Crystal Palace - Restoring The Vision London

Delivering London’s Manufacturing in Thames GatewaySouth

London

Destination Wembley Access to Opportunities London

Digital Learning Ring London

Digital Learning Ring: The Next Generation, Pan-London

London

East Battersea Power House London

Elephant Links London

Engineering a Competitive Future at the Heart ofThames Gateway

London

Enterprise for Communities, Pan-London London

Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Capacity BuildingProgramme

London

From Dependency to Work, Pan-London London

From Disadvantage to Opportunity, Croydon London


From Hardcore Homeless into Work, Pan-London London

Get Set for Citizenship, New Cross and Deptford London

Getting London Working London

Green Networks: A West London Pilot London

H2R Hard to Reach Including a Community, Harlesden London

Hackney Wick Regeneration London

Haggerston Partnership: Connecting Regeneration London

Haringey Heartlands London

Health Benefits Regeneration, Greenwich London

It’s Not Your Skills.......It’s Your Attitude London

Joining Up Northumberland Park, Tottenham London

Keep London Working London

L’Ouverture - Widening Participation in Education andLearning

London

Lea Side, Tower Hamlets London

London East TEC: London Accord London

London New Business Creation London

London South Central Connections, Vauxhall London

London's Canals And River Corridors London

Manufacturing Investment and WorkforceDevelopment, Barking and Dagenham, Havering andThurrock

London

Merton: Pollards Hill Estate London

Missing Links: Finsbury Park Community Trust London

More London Bridge: More Opportunities for Residentsand Employees/ers, London Bridge

London

New Commitment to Kilburn London

New Horizons for Harold Hill London

New Life For Paddington London

New Opportunities for Walthamstow London

White City Regeneration London

Once in 1000 Years: Opportunities in Greenwich London

Opportunity Into Reality: A New Waterloo London

Park Royal Connect London

Positive Futures, Positive Lives, Pan-London London

Prosperity and Pride in Peckham London

Putting New Heart into Grahame Park, Barnet London

Raising our Sights: New Ambitions for Young People inLambeth

London

Raising the Dalgarno, North Kensington London

West Of The Borough - LB Tower Hamlets London

Re-engineering Secondary Materials for the ThamesGateway

London

Renewal Turning Adversity into Opportunity forRefugees and Recent Arrivals in West London, Ealing,Hammersmith and Hounslow

London


Safe in the City London

Silwood Regeneration London

Skills For The Millennium in Thames Gateway London

South Greenwich: Building New Links London

Southall Regeneration Partnership London

Southwark’s Campaign Against Hate Crimes London

Stratford: A Strategy For Schools London

Take Another Look at Abbey Wood and Thamesmead London

The Art of Regeneration, North Lewisham and WestGreenwich

London

The Circle Initiative, Central London London

The Health Ladder to Social Inclusion: Redbridge andWaltham Forest

London

Thresholds Partnership Bid London

Tomorrow's City, Stratford London

Tottenham Futures London

Tree-mendous Londoners, Whitechapel, Elephant andCastle and Stockwell

London

West Green Learning Neighbourhood London

Urban Renaissance in Lewisham London

Vauxhall-all-Together Now London

Virtual Learning And Access Community London

Wandsworth Housing Association: Shortlife "Plus"(Pilot Initiative)

London

Wandsworth Town - A New Urban Centre London

Adswood & Bridgehall, Stockport North West

Atherton Building Communities North West

Blackburn Central North West

Brinnington Community, Stockport North West

Building A Better Future, Macclesfield (Colshaw Farm) North West

Building Better Communities, Skelmersdale North West

Building Sustainable Communities North West

Building a Better Bacup, Rossendale North West

Cleator Moor Regeneration North West

Commonwealth Games North West

Count Me In St Helens North West

Creating Confidence in Burnley's Communities North West

Dismantling Barriers For Black And Ethnic MinorityCommunities - Progress Trust - Manchester

North West

East Bury North West

Eastlink Manchester/Tameside Enterprises North West

Expanding Horizons, Merseyside North West

Halewood Partnership North West

Hattersley Towards A Learning Community North West

Heart of the Port - Ellesmere Port North West


Integrating & Sustaining Communities North West

Investing in a Sustainable Competitive Future for theNorth West

North West

Lancashire Tourism Partnership North West

Lancaster - Luneside North West

Leading Edge Bury North West

linking life chances in Tameside North West

Manchester TEC LTD - 14-19 Youth Strategy In TheTEC Area

North West

Maryport Regeneration North West

Merseyside North West

New Opportunities On the Wirral North West

New Wallasey North West

Oldham - Welfare To Work North West

Oldham Glodwick North West

Oldham's Route To Renaissance North West

Partington & Carrington, Trafford North West

Pendle- Kick Start for Jobs North West

Positive Alternatives For Young People North West

Positively Raffles, Carlisle North West

Preston - Aven Central North West

Regeneration In West Chester North West

Rochdale North West

South Sefton Partnership North West

South Whitehaven Partnership North West

Stockport In The Market Place North West

Sustainable Regeneration Through Tourism North West

The Heart of Barrow Building Bridges North West

The Wythenshawe Initiative AKA East Wythenshawe North West

Wigan's Regeneration Working Together North West

Winsford into Work, Vale Royal North West

Wirral Waterfront North West

Workington Regeneration North West

A Catalyst for Business and Skills Growth, Bexhill South East

ADUR Industry First South East

Barton Community Regeneration South East

Believing In Folkestone South East

Believing in Folkestone South East

Believing in Folkestone South East

Community Based Capacity Building in Blackbird Leys,Oxford

South East

Competing For Jobs And People, Hastings South East

Connecting Communities, Isle of Thanet South East

Connecting Communities: Weacock & Rowner South East


Compact, Gosport

Connecting Paulsgrove and Wymering, Portsmouth South East

Dover Urban Regeneration Programme South East

East Kent Coalfield Regeneration Programme South East

East Oxford Action South East

East Reading Area Partnership South East

East Reading Partnership South East

Education Achievement Programme - Portsmouth andSouth East Hampshire

South East

Engaging the Local Community, Hastings South East

Enterprising Leigh Park, Havant South East

Former East Kent Coalfield South East

Gateways to Community Success, Thames Gateway South East

Hailsham East Area Renewal (H.E.A.R.) South East

Hastings and St Leonards - A Sea Change South East

Herne Bay & Whitstable Coastal RegenerationProgramme

South East

Island Inclusive, Isle of Wight South East

Isle of Wight South East

Littlehampton 2000 South East

Medway Innovation Centre, Medway Towns South East

North Kent Gateway to Opportunity South East

Northgate Community Regeneration, Canterbury South East

People at the Centre of Slough South East

Pooling out Resources: Changing Course and Culturein Eastbourne

South East

Promoting Social Inclusion, Brighton & Hove South East

Regenerating the Heart of Portsmouth South East

Ryde 2000, Isle of Wight South East

Rye Bay Renaissance South East

Simply Stoke, Slough South East

Slough New Generation South East

South Kent Rural Development Area Partnership South East

Southampton Community Futures South East

Spotlight On Bletchley, Milton Keynes South East

Stanhope - Towards a Sense of Place, Ashford South East

Swanley - People First South East

Thames Valley Social Enterprise South East

Thanet Horizons South East

Thanet Talent South East

Towards a Safer Community, Hastings South East

Turning the Tide : A Bright Coastal Future, W SussexCoastal

South East

Wolverton Works South East


“CHANGE” in Gloucestershire South West

Barnstaple South West

Bid for Sutton Ward, Plymouth South West

Boscombe, A Working Community, Bournemouth South West

Bridging the Gap, South Gloucestershire and Bristol South West

Bringing Bristol Together South West

Bringing Glastonbury Together South West

Capacity Building in South Somerset Market Towns South West

Cheltenham: ST. Pauls (Lower High St) Renewal Area South West

Communities First in Rural Somerset, Phase II South West

Dorset Country Towns South West

Engage West Cornwall South West

Forest of Dean Young People's Project South West

Gloucester Challenging Attitudes South West

Hamp for Hamp, Sedgemoor South West

HOPE for Youth in Exeter South West

New Deal for Torbay South West

Northern ARC, Bristol South West

Norton/Radstock, Somerset: Rural Regeneration South West

Parks and Walcot East Regeneration, Swindon South West

Pivotal Crime Points Drugs Initiative, Gloucestershire South West

Plymouth 2000 South West

Plymouth Turning the Tide South West

Promoting Real Opportunities by Mentoring inSomerset (PROMISE)

South West

Regeneration of Gloucestershire Market Towns South West

Restormel, Cornwall : Community HousingEmployment Environment Regeneration Scheme,(CHEERS)

South West

Rural Action For The Development of Information,Communication, Advice and Learning (RADICAL),North Cornwall

South West

Smart Isles West, Region Wide South West

Social Inclusion Groups & Networks (SIGN), Cornwall& Isles of Scilly

South West

Swindon: Building On Success South West

Taunton East Action South West

The West Cornwall Employment Programme South West

Tidworth Community Regeneration, Wiltshire South West

Torridge & North Devon : Young People South West

Towards a Regional Infrastructure, South West South West

Weston-super-Mare - Together we can make aDifference

South West

Weston-Super-Mare : Unlocking Potential South West

Weymouth & Portland Choices Programme South West


Weymouth: Waterside Regeneration South West

Wiltshire Market Towns STAR Project South West

Wonford Regeneration Partnership, Exeter South West

Working Together for a Better Future, Plymouth South West

Working Together for Change, Hartcliffe & Withywood South West

Working With the Next Generation, Pill South West

Yeovil : Stepping Towards Enterprise South West

Youth Owning Urban Regeneration (YOUR), Bristol South West

A New Deal for Barnsley Yorkshire and the Humber

A Platform For Change, Kirklees Yorkshire and the Humber

Acorns Westcliff & Riddings Regeneration, Scunthorpe Yorkshire and the Humber

Back On Track Yorkshire and the Humber

Barton Upon Humber Regeneration Yorkshire and the Humber

Better Neighbourhoods and Confident Communities, Yorkshire and the Humber

Bradford Regeneration 2000 Yorkshire and the Humber

Building A Better Bridlington Yorkshire and the Humber

Building On Achievement, Dearne Valley Partnership Yorkshire and the Humber

Building on the Foundations, Goole Yorkshire and the Humber

Building The Future- Investing In Youth (NELincolnshire)

Yorkshire and the Humber

Calderdale Communities Of The Future Yorkshire and the Humber

Communities in Partnership North Clifton Regeneration Yorkshire and the Humber

Community Regeneration Partnerships, Sheffield Yorkshire and the Humber

Creating a Learning Community - NE Lincs Yorkshire and the Humber

Creating an Inclusive and Prosperous City, Sheffield Yorkshire and the Humber

Dalton, Rawthorpe & Moldgreen, Huddersfield Yorkshire and the Humber

Experiencing Enterprise, Barnsley, Bradford, Hull,North Yorkshire


Facing the Future, Manningham & Girlington Yorkshire and the Humber

Foundations For A Competitive Economy Yorkshire and the Humber

Hemsworth Coalfield Partnership, Wakefield Yorkshire and the Humber

Investing in the Community, Beeston & Holbeck Leeds Yorkshire and the Humber

Learning Youth and Using our Abilities, Hull Yorkshire and the Humber

Leeds - Aire Valley Employment Area Yorkshire and the Humber

Local Communities, Social Inclusion and RegionalEconomy


New York Riverside, Rotherham Yorkshire and the Humber

Newlands Integrated Regeneration Strategy Yorkshire and the Humber

North Yorkshire - Developing Futures for Communityand Agricultural Regen.


Opportunities for All, Dearne Valley Yorkshire and the Humber

Partnership With Young People, Leeds Yorkshire and the Humber

Regenerating North East Lincolnshire Yorkshire and the Humber

Regeneration of the Catterick Garrison Communities Yorkshire and the Humber


RESURGO North Lincolnshire Yorkshire and the Humber

Ripon Moving Forward, Ripon City Yorkshire and the Humber

River Hull Corridor, Phase 1 : Heartlands Yorkshire and the Humber

Routes to Employment in North Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber

Sheffield - Netherthorpe & Upperthorpe SustainableRegeneration


Social & Economic Regeneration of Ryedale Yorkshire and the Humber

Sowerby Bridge Yorkshire and the Humber

Spirit of Staithes Regeneration Initiative, NorthYorkshire


The Falsgrave Community Investment Initiative Yorkshire and the Humber

The Filey Bay Regeneration Initiative Yorkshire and the Humber

West Yorkshire Reach Out Partnership Yorkshire and the Humber

Widening Horizons - Withernsea & SouthernHolderness


Young People: Sharing Rotherham's Future Yorkshire and the Humber


Appendix C – List of stakeholderconsultations

Name Organisation Position Region

Jamie Merrick EEDA Head of Strategy Eastern Region

Dave Parratt EEDA Senior Project Manager,Major Projects Team

Eastern Region

Jools Tinsley Great Yarmouth BC Regeneration Officer Eastern Region

Neil Stott Keystone DevelopmentTrust

Chief Executive Eastern Region

Laura Church Luton BC Head of Regeneration Eastern Region

Jai Raithatha Suffolk CC Regional Policy Manager Eastern Region

Badrul Islam Ethnic minority EnterpriseProject

Director of Ethnic minorityEnterprise Project

London

Diane Burridge LDA Senior Relationships &Investment PlanningManager

London

Isobel Rawlinson LDA Head of Relationships &Investment Planning

London

Caroline Bostock LDA Interim Head ofRelationships and IP

London

Andrew Sproat NWDA Regeneration Manager North West

Ken Smith NWDA Project Delivery Manager,Programmes and Delivery

North West

Mark Canning NWDA Project Delivery Manager,Programmes and Delivery

North West

Ruth Pugsley NWDA Policy Manager, Policyand Strategy

North West

Val Browne NWDA Head of ProgrammeOffice

North West

Pam McHale SEEDA Head of Area Policy andPartnerships

South East

Ross Hurley SEEDA Area Manager - MiltonKeynes

South East

Pat Tempany SEEDA Head of UrbanRenaissance and Housing

South East

Martin Dennison Portsmouth & SouthHampshire Partnership

Executive Director,Portsmouth & SouthHampshire Partnership

South East

Shelagh Cuell Slough Borough Council Head of Partnerships,Voluntary Sector andPartnerships Unit,

South East


Mel Bonney-Kane Hastings Trust Executive Director South East

Nigel Williams SWRDA Community RegenerationPartnership Manager

South West

Roger Vaughan SWRDA Project Review Advisor South West

Neil Robertson Cornwall Enterprise Head of Partnership andFund services division

South West

Stephen Hewitt Hartcliffe & WithywoodVentures

Chief Executive of HWVPartnership

South West

Lisa Evans Plymouth City Council Senior Accountant South West

Professor Murray Ex-University of the Westof England

Retired professor South West

Don Stewart Yorkshire Forward Executive Director,Strategy


Tracy Greig Yorkshire Forward Senior RegenerationDevelopment Manager


John Shepherd Action Halifax Chief Executive Yorkshire and the Humber

Naseem Kereshi Regen2000 Project Manager Yorkshire and the Humber

Christian Foster Doncaster MBC Programmes Manager Yorkshire and the Humber

Simeon Leach Rotherham MBC Economic Strategy TeamManager


This report has been prepared solely for the use of the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform

and should not be quoted in whole or in part without our prior consent. No responsibility to any third party is accepted

as the report has not been prepared for, and is not intended for any other purpose.

Draft deliverables and oral advice will not constitute PwC’s definitive opinions and conclusions. We will have no

liability to you for the content or use of any draft deliverables or for our oral advice, except where such oral advice is

confirmed in writing in a final version of any deliverables. We shall not be deemed to have knowledge of information

from other engagements for the purposes of the provision of the Services, except to the extent specified in the

Engagement letter. Save as expressly stated in the Engagement letter, we will rely on and will not verify the accuracy

or completeness of any information provided to us. The Services do not constitute an audit or review carried out in

accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and no assurance will be given by us.

In the event that, pursuant to a request which you have received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as the

same may be amended or re-enacted from time to time) or any subordinate legislation made thereunder (collectively,

the “Legislation”), you are required to disclose any information contained in this report, we ask that you notify us

promptly and consult with us prior to disclosing such information. You agree to pay due regard to any

representations which we may make in connection with such disclosure and to apply any relevant exemptions which

may exist under the Legislation to such information. If, following consultation with us, you disclose any such

information, please ensure that any disclaimer which we have included or may subsequently wish to include in the

information is reproduced in full in any copies disclosed.

© 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a limited liability partnership in the United Kingdom) or, as the context requires, other

member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal

entity.

srb evaluation for six english regions

Documents