SRB Evaluation For Six English Regions

Government and Public Sector August 2008
Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform

An evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget programme in six English Regions
Final Report
Government and Public Sector August 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 PwCs 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.
Contents
Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Page
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 11 Background to SRB............................................................................................................................. 14 Approach and methodology ................................................................................................................ 18 The impact of SRB in the East of England.......................................................................................... 39 The impact of SRB in London ............................................................................................................. 74 The impact of SRB in the North West ............................................................................................... 101 The impact of SRB in the South East................................................................................................ 126 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
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1 Executive Summary
Introduction
The impact of spending by each of the nine Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and the RDA network as a whole is currently being independently assessed, with a particular focus on activities in the period from 2002/2003 to 2006/2007. The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) is a substantive part of RDAs expenditure in this period, accounting for around 2 billion out of total RDA relevant spending of 8.7 billion across the nine RDAs. Evaluating and understanding the impact of SRB activity in the regions is, therefore, very important in terms of helping to understand the overall impact of RDA spending. SRB was an ambitious, multi-faceted regeneration programme. It was launched in 1994 and ran for six Rounds, with the last schemes finishing in 2008. It sought to simplify and streamline regeneration funding and to promote a new way of tackling the problems faced by disadvantaged communities, by delivering sustainable change through local regeneration partnerships. The method of awarding funding and the types of initiatives supported changed over the lifetime of SRB. As the programme progressed, the bidding approach of the early Rounds shifted towards a more commissioning-based process, with partnerships increasingly delivering specific programmes of activity rather than collections of individual projects. This later approach was more in keeping with the move towards strategic regeneration employed by the RDAs, who took over responsibility for SRB in 1999 (2000 in London) from the regional Government Offices. The SRB programme supported over 1,000 SRB schemes across England, each containing a number of individual projects within. The national SRB programme received an estimated 5.8 billion of funding across its six Rounds, with total expenditure including leveraged funding estimated at 26 1 billion . In March 2008, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) were commissioned by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to undertake a meta-evaluation to assess the impact of SRB activity in six English regions: East of England, London, North West, South East, South West and Yorkshire & Humber. Meta-evaluations of SRB spending had already been completed or 2 3 were planned for the three other regions: East Midlands, West Midlands and North East ). 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 and lessons 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 an evaluation of RDAs SRB spending, especially in the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07, which broadly meets the needs of the Impact Evaluation Framework (IEF) that guides RDAs evaluation activities
The Single Regeneration Budget: A Partnership for Regeneration The Final Evaluation Report Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, 2003 2 Evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget in the West Midlands Ekos Consulting Ltd, 2008 3 An evaluation of the SRB programme in the North East York Consulting, May 2007 4 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
and can feed into the impact evaluation of the RDA network as a whole. The focus of the work is on SRB schemes funded in Rounds 3 to 6, as the RDA Impact Steering Group agreed that it was these later Rounds that RDAs were more effectively able to influence. Table 1.2 illustrates RDAs SRB expenditure between 2002/03 and 2006/07; this expenditure is all deemed to be covered by this metaevaluation. The impact of SRB has been assessed though a meta-evaluation, which has been a largely deskbased 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 the six participating regions; telephone consultations with 33 stakeholders across the six regions; analysis of programme expenditure, outputs, outcomes, impacts, strengths and weaknesses and the lessons that can be learnt, based on the evaluation evidence received; analysis of national expenditure and leverage information from the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG); and examination and analysis of the national evaluation of SRB, previously-completed regional SRB meta-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% of Rounds 3 to 6 expenditure across the six participating regions. Our evidence base comprises evaluation reports with final (or assumed final) output and expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were 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 major weaknesses of the evaluations we have reviewed is that the vast majority do not consider the net impacts of schemes. We have, therefore, used the additionality coefficients derived in the SRB National Evaluation in order to estimate the net outputs of the SRB schemes within scope. Although this approach is not ideal, it has been agreed with BERR and the wider RDA Impact Steering Group as 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 in Rounds 3 to 6 across the six participating RDAs. Table 1.1: Number of SRB schemes in scope per region, by Round, for participating RDAs RDA 1
EEDA LDA NWDA SEEDA SWRDA YF Totals 13 49 35 19 10 22 148
SRB Round 2
9 41 19 24 11 15 119
3
9 48 33 19 14 16 139
4
7 22 21 14 10 14 88
5
11 38 23 24 8 14 118
6
16 46 20 21 18 19 140
Round 1-6 Total

65 244 151 121 71 100 752
Round 3-6 Total

43 154 97 78 50 63 485
Source: CLG
As Table 1.1 illustrates, almost a third of these schemes were in London alone, and more than half were in either London or the North West. The number of schemes varied significantly across the four Rounds, 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 that the six RDAs spent roughly 1.4 billion on SRB between 2002/03 and 2006/07, which is the focus of the wider project to assess the impact of RDA spending. This expenditure was highest at the beginning of the period and tapered down over time, as the national programme drew towards its conclusion. Table 1.2: RDAs actual SRB expenditure in the RDA impact project relevant spend period ( million) RDA
EEDA LDA NWDA SEEDA SWRDA YF Totals
Source: PwC/RDAs
2002/03
28.0 189.1 46.2 37.4 15.6 112.2 428.5
2003/04
16.6 132.2 97.6 41.1 12.3 92.0 391.9
2004/05
10.9 82.6 66.8 23.1 11.5 63.1 258.0
2005/06
7.0 72.4 67.9 20.3 9.6 36.3 213.7
2006/07
2.4 31.4 43.2 6.9 6.2 28.0 118.0
Total
64.9 507.8 321.8 128.8 55.2 331.6 1,410.1
Table 1.2 shows the expenditure on SRB schemes incurred by the six RDAs between 2002/03 and 2006/07. This is the volume of spend which will be treated as covered by this meta-evaluation for the purposes of the wider RDA Impact project. This is not the same as the total expenditure of all Rounds 3 to 6 schemes, because some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07.
Overall outputs
SRB schemes recorded outputs across sixty-three different output categories. This reflects the broad economic and non-economic objectives of SRB schemes. In this meta-evaluation, we have recorded, collated and analysed the evidence on outputs and assessed performance across each output category. We have collated outputs into three groups for this meta-evaluation core, other economic and other non-economic in order to segment our presentation and analysis of the SRB programme. To illustrate the scale of SRB outputs across the six regions, Table 1.3 presents the gross and net figures we have collated from the evaluation evidence we have received for the six core outputs across the RDAs that have participated in the meta-evaluation.
Table 1.3: SRB core outputs across all six participating RDAs Output category Total gross outputs Total net outputs Total gross RDA outputs 2002/03 to 2006/07
306,708 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 62,827 279,400 7,306 6,342 1,144 27,015 156,465 3,214 3,108 892 n/a 32,477 3,543 n/a
1A (i) Number of jobs created
83,245
34,131
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 the SRB programme created or safeguarded 145,000 gross and more than 60,000 net jobs across the six regions. In net terms, around 156,000 people are estimated to have obtained qualifications through training schemes that took place as a result of SRB; over 3,000 new businesses that were supported by SRB survived for at least one year; over 3,000 hectares of land were improved or reclaimed for development and almost 900 community enterprises were established. These are substantial numbers. To emphasise this point, we have compared the six RDAs core outputs between 2002/03 and 2006/07 with the gross outputs associated with the SRB schemes we have reviewed, recognising that we are not comparing like with like because some of the SRB outputs would have occurred before 2002/03 and because of changing output definitions. Nonetheless, our analysis illustrates the importance of SRB across the six regions. For example, between 2002/03 and 2006/07, the six RDAs reported just over 300,000 total gross jobs created or safeguarded; in comparison, the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 across those regions created or safeguarded almost 150,000 jobs. The six RDAs reported 32,500 new supported businesses surviving 52 weeks; SRB Rounds 3 to 6 supported 7,300. The RDAs reported that 3,500 hectares of land was improved or reclaimed for development; SRB Rounds 3 to 6 reclaimed 6,300 hectares (indicating that some of this reclamation occurred before 2002/03). Although we cannot compare exactly, it is evident that SRB played 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 gross and net outputs for all sixty-three official output categories. The range of outputs generated illustrates the breadth and scale of SRB. For example, in gross terms, across the six regions in SRB Rounds 3 to 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 in this report analyses the gross and net outputs generated by SRB schemes in that region across our designated 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 the outputs 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 this meta-evaluation. SRB delivered a diverse range of outputs and outcomes, not all of which have been or can be readily measured in economic terms. It is also not possible with the information available to match expenditure to particular outputs. For example, we do not know how much it cost to undertake particular activities, as the expenditure information we have cannot be disaggregated in that way. We cannot, therefore, provide a meaningful assessment of the value for money of the activities undertaken. For the same reasons, we are also unable to assess the contribution of economic outputs 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, by reducing 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 poorer neighbourhoods. The central tenet of SRBs delivery approach was the development of local partnerships that were able to develop schemes specifically tailored to local circumstances. This devolution of responsibility for administering funds to local partnerships allowed for a more flexible and innovative approach to local level regeneration. Output performance The individual regional sections demonstrate that SRB schemes have delivered a wide range of economic 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 in the evidence that we reviewed, with targets largely being achieved. However, we have recorded some wide variations in performance to target. Some of the evaluations themselves noted the difficulties that partnerships encountered in setting meaningful targets across so many categories and in sometimes recording outputs accurately. We have not sought to verify target or output information in the evidence that we have received. Leverage The programme also had some success in leveraging significant other public and private funds to regeneration projects we found 1,027 million of evaluated SRB spend with leverage data in this meta-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 way which is consistent with the requirements of the Impact Evaluation Framework (IEF) has been a challenge, 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 by aggregating together the results of a series of local evaluations, without having the necessary information 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 been totally dependent on evaluation evidence that is generally not compliant with the IEF, although we recognise that these principles were defined well after the schemes started only a very small number of evaluations have considered additionality, net outputs and overall outcomes, and the vast majority
8 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
have said very little about impact; and the strong emphasis of SRB on gross outputs means that our meta-evaluation, which reflects the evaluation evidence we have received, is able to say much more on outputs than it can about outcomes or impacts. Despite these challenges, some key themes around impact have emerged from the evidence we have reviewed. Some reports noted an increase in the self-confidence, self-esteem and skills base of the individuals who participated in SRB projects; others reported an increased awareness of policing issues, a reduced fear of crime and increased feelings of community safety. Other impacts recorded across the localities included an increase in those attending full-time education; a reduction in instances of domestic abuse; increased youth participation in sporting activities; reduced unemployment 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 notable impact on communities. This suggests that the difference that communities will have felt from the creation of many thousands of jobs, from the businesses that were supported, the people that were trained, the houses that were built or improved, the community facilities that were built, the land that was reclaimed, the crime and safety initiatives that took place and the areas that were regenerated is likely to have been significant. Given the absence of wider evidence, it is difficult to say much more about the difference that the SRB programme has made because the evaluation evidence alone is generally too weak. Even those reports that sought to link SRB outputs to wider socio-economic trends noted the difficulties in linking SRB inputs to impacts. Partnership working Partnerships had successes and failures, as did schemes themselves. Where partnerships worked well there was often an appropriate balance of public, private and community representation on partnership boards. Getting partnerships to survive the duration of the scheme appears to have been a challenge: many evaluations refer to the waning enthusiasm of some board members once key scheme decisions had been made. Where partnerships were not so successful, there were often difficulties in getting the formal structures functioning smoothly and in getting the balance of participation right. Engaging with the private sector was a consistent challenge for partnerships the reported bureaucracy of SRB processes may not have helped in this regard and there was a tendency for partnerships to be dominated by public and voluntary sector groups. Legacy Understanding the legacy of SRB within the context of this work has been difficult. Final evaluation reports were normally completed before schemes ended, and there was little evidence on the 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 during the lifetime of the programme. However, the extent to which it was able to genuinely bend mainstream funding sources on a permanent basis is less clear, and it is difficult to know if and how non-SRB areas have benefited from SRB schemes. In terms of delivery mechanisms, we do not know how many partnerships survived post-SRB or for how long. The evaluation evidence suggested that some partnerships were set to continue and evolve at their schemes end, by becoming stand-alone entities that could provide a strategic lead for the locations regeneration activities. However, other evaluations noted that some partnerships did not contemplate an existence beyond SRB until the scheme was approaching its end, when both time and resources were short. Despite some notable exceptions, there appears to be limited evidence of the mainstreaming of SRB projects on the whole. This is not entirely surprising, given that mainstreaming was not a core objective of SRB.
Conclusions
With so many schemes over 1,000 in total, and almost 500 across the six participating RDAs in Rounds 3 to 6 there are bound to have been successes and failures. The evidence we have reviewed suggests that many of the SRB schemes that were deemed by evaluators to have been successful were considered to be meeting specific needs, were delivered in a coherent and cohesive way, had good project appraisal processes, had strong and committed leadership and had an effective Board containing active and representative participation from relevant sectors of the community. Where schemes didnt work so well, the evidence suggests that a variety of reasons contributed to those difficulties. These include: recruitment difficulties and a lack of staff continuity; a lack of training to help Board members understand and discharge their duties effectively; a failure to attract or retain representative involvement from all sections of the community, especially the private sector; a failure to engage with the section(s) of the community that the scheme was set up to benefit; a geographical focus that was too wide; and difficulties in balancing the aims and objectives of different interest groups in the partnership. Some of the lessons from SRB have no doubt already been learnt, given the time that has elapsed since many SRB schemes ended. The amount that we can say about the success or otherwise of schemes 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: the need to ensure that projects are focused, appropriately structured, achieve buy-in from relevant sectors 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 of elapsed time or of subsequent developments in national or regional policy.
10
2 Introduction
Introduction
In March 2008, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) were commissioned by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to undertake a meta-evaluation of the impact of Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) activity in six English regions: East of England, London, North West, South East, South West and Yorkshire & Humber. This is the final report for the meta-evaluation, which has been conducted by PwC and York Consulting. This report explains the purpose, scope and method of evaluation and presents the findings 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 to provide an independent assessment of the impacts of spending for each of the nine RDAs and the RDA network as a whole. The work required is to:
carry out a comprehensive assessment of the nine RDAs existing and planned evaluation activities, focusing on those commissioned since the last review and the development of the Impact Evaluation Framework; analyse and assess the pattern of RDA spend covered by impact evaluations which have reported or are currently expected to report; carry out a quality assurance process on existing and planned evaluation activities to check that they 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 the commissioning process has started, and bringing existing studies up to a consistent and robust standard; 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 overall National 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/project spend (i.e. excluding administration costs and expenditure that has been deemed to be too early to evaluate) in the period from 2002/2003 to 2006/2007, rather than legacy spend and spend on national programmes 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 various points 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% of this spend. SRB expenditure is a substantive part of RDAs relevant expenditure, accounting for around 2 billion out of a total RDA relevant spend figure of 8.7 billion. The National Audit Office is also known to be particularly interested in understanding the impact of RDAs activities in relation to regeneration, and SRB projects are a key element of this. An evaluation of SRB activity is, therefore, required in order to contribute to the current work being undertaken to evaluate the impact of RDA spending. For many RDAs, achieving the target level of evaluation 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 been completed for the West Midlands, East Midlands and North East. PwC were commissioned to undertake 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 an evaluation of RDAs SRB spending, especially in the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07, which broadly meets the needs of the IEF. The focus of the work is on SRB Rounds 3 to 6, as the RDA impact project Steering Group agreed that RDAs were more able to influence these later Rounds and expenditure on these Rounds was concentrated 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 in Rounds 3 to 6. Wherever possible we have reviewed final evaluations; where this was not possible we have 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 to the challenges of evaluating but we recognise it has several important limitations, which we feel it is essential to state at the outset of this report:
This is not a primary evaluation We have been entirely dependent on the quality and quantity of the evaluations we have received, rather than being able to review RDAs SRB programmes at first hand. There was no clear evaluation framework for SRB This has meant that the evaluations we have received vary in their scope and approach. The evaluation evidence base is incomplete The SRB evaluation evidence base we have received does not cover all SRB schemes in scope, despite the strenuous efforts of RDAs to track down as much evidence for us as they could, and not all the evaluation evidence we have received is usable. Corporate memory of the SRB programme is limited This has made it harder to gain a full understanding of the purpose, activities and outcomes of those programmes. Most evaluations have not involved direct contact with beneficiaries A wholly IEF-compliant
12
evaluation of SRB would have involved direct contact with beneficiaries to get evidence of the impact that SRB schemes have had, to understand more about what would have happened in the absence of these interventions and to determine the dimensions of additionality.
The estimates of additionality reflect local rather than regional-level impacts The additionality 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 the whole document. The report is presented in a consistent way for the six regions, with eleven main sections 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 the meta-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 the expenditure that we have received evaluation evidence for; Section 11 is a concluding chapter that outlines the key messages we have gathered from the reviewed evidence across the six regions.
A set of appendices outline the evidence we have reviewed and the people we have spoken to through 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 to retrieve as much SRB evaluation evidence as possible these efforts are much appreciated. We are also grateful to the representatives of the SRB Steering Group, who have helped to guide and influence the project.
13
3 Background to SRB
SRB history and context

Background Prior to the establishment of SRB, central governments approach to regeneration had been characterised by a large number of separate funding streams and a reactive, rather piecemeal approach to tackling deprivation. When the SRB programme commenced in 1994, it sought to simplify and streamline the Governments existing regeneration schemes, bringing some eighteen separate programmes into a single pot. SRB was designed not only to streamline regeneration funding, but also to promote a new way of tackling the problems faced by disadvantaged communities. Delivery through local regeneration partnerships was a key feature of the SRB programme. Partnerships were tasked with identifying local need 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 many cases, a local authority was the accountable body. At the regional level, the SRB programme was run by 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 of SRB. As the programme progressed, the bidding approach of the early Rounds shifted towards a more commissioning-based process, with partnerships increasingly delivering specific programmes of activity rather than collections of individual projects. This later approach was more in keeping with the move towards strategic regeneration employed by the RDAs. Rationale The overall rationale for SRB centred on the desire to tackle social exclusion and promote equality of opportunity. The focus of support was on the most deprived communities in England, with the aim being to reduce the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest, and between different groups in society. In addition, specific rationales existed for each individual SRB scheme, depending on local circumstances. The nature of a localitys problems, their size and scale, also meant that there was significant variation in the spatial level of intervention. The focus of the schemes ranged from regional right 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 of 4 need, by reducing the gap between deprived and other areas, and between different groups . Beneath this, a core set of common objectives underpinned the programme throughout the six Rounds. These focused on:
improving the employment prospects of local people;
Department for Communities and Local Governments SRB website Background and Overview: see http://www.communities.gov.uk/citiesandregions/regeneration/singleregenerationbudget/221229/ 14 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
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, some changes did take place over the duration of the programme, especially in Rounds 5 and 6. For example, the early objective of supporting ethnic minorities was replaced by a wider commitment to address social exclusion and, in Round 5, the Rural Challenge Fund was assimilated into the SRB programme. Irrespective of changes to the objectives between Rounds, the scope of the SRB programme was always very broad. This is reflected in the very wide range of initiatives that were supported, between and within schemes. These have included large-scale strategic transport infrastructure projects, substantial physical improvements to housing estates, CCTV schemes, school-based projects and business support initiatives. Importantly for the RDAs, economic development was always just one of a 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. The East of England had the fewest schemes. Table 3.1: Total number of SRB schemes per region, by Round SRB Round 1
East East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire & Humber Totals
Source: CLG
Region 2
9 15 41 17 19 24 11 21 15 172
3
9 14 48 20 33 19 14 9 16 182
4
7 10 22 12 21 14 10 11 14 121
5
11 11 38 16 23 24 8 18 14 163
6
16 19 46 19 20 21 18 11 19 189
Total
65 80 244 113 151 121 71 83 100 1,028
13 11 49 29 35 19 10 13 22 201
Funding Table 3.2 shows the total budgeted SRB expenditure for each Round, across the regions. Total budgeted expenditure for SRB amounted to 5.8 billion over the six Rounds. Again, London and the East of England were the largest and smallest beneficiaries of SRB funding respectively.
15
Table 3.2: Total budgeted SRB expenditure per region, by Round (m) SRB Round 1
Source: CLG
Region 2
35.3 56.9 252.3 160.6 220.6 78.6 37.9 146.9 151.1 1140.2
3
18.6 29.7 280 141.5 141.9 108 23.1 55.3 130.6 928.7
4
8.7 22.3 73.1 20.5 53.1 23 10.4 50 57.8 318.9
5
20.6 64 319.8 119.6 217.8 70.4 30.9 87.2 108.8 1039.1
6
32.7 71 300 127.7 231.6 70 31.7 134.3 230 1229
Total
141 290.1 1541.4 650.5 1081.9 381.8 167.9 630.4 880.5 5765.5
25.1 46.2 316.2 80.6 216.9 31.8 33.9 156.7 202.2 1109.6
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 of 5 Super Output Areas in each region that fell in the bottom quartile of the governments Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) in 2004. Comparing these figures as percentages with the percentage of SRB funding received shows that, in five regions, the variance between these two figures was less than two percentage points. Notwithstanding the variances, the data provides an indicative picture of how SRB funding was allocated between regions and suggests a reasonably good fit between need and financial support. Table 3.3: SRB funding and deprivation Region Number of SOAs in bottom IMD quartile nationally
316 618 1662 753 1726 402 397 1100 1146 8120
% of total SOAs in lowest IMD quartile nationally

3.9% 7.6% 20.5% 9.3% 21.3% 5.0% 4.9% 13.5% 14.1% 100.0%
% of SRB funding received

2.4% 5.0% 26.7% 11.3% 18.8% 6.6% 2.9% 10.9% 15.3% 100.0%
Variance (percentage points)

-1.5 -2.6 6.2 2.0 -2.5 1.6 -2.0 -2.6 1.2 ---
Source: PwC/York Consulting, based on IMD/CLG data
Super Output Areas are a geographic hierarchy designed to improve the reporting of small area statistics through three layers (minimum 1,000; minimum 5,000; minimum 25,000) of consistent sizes and boundaries. They are designed to be more robust and comparable than electoral ward categorisations. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/soa.asp for more detail. 16 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Role of RDAs in SRB

With their establishment in 1999 (2000 in London), RDAs took over responsibility for the regional administration of the SRB programme from the Government Offices. The RDAs role went beyond that of regional administrator, and there was an expectation that SRB would be used to support the delivery of the regions Regional Economic Strategies. While RDAs were expected to have the capacity to influence Rounds 4 and 5 (the latters bidding Round occurred just as the RDAs were being established), in practice this was not always the case, as SRB partnerships were often committed to meeting their established delivery plans. It was in Round 6 where the linkages to RDAs priorities and objectives became notably clearer. For Round 6, SRB funding was explicitly expected to support regionally-determined priorities. Where possible, RDAs were encouraged to ensure that activity supported under previous Rounds also addressed the regions needs. The assimilation of SRB into the new RDA mechanisms was completed in 2002, when the funding stream was incorporated into the Single Pot Programme.
17
4 Approach and methodology
Introduction
This section explains the approach and methodology we have adopted to evaluate the impact of SRB across the six participating RDAs. It also provides more information about the breadth and depth of evaluation 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 metaevaluation 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 each participating RDA. According to the list of successful SRB bids provided by CLG, there were 485 SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 across the six participating RDAs. As the table illustrates, the number of schemes across these four Rounds varied significantly between the regions, from 43 in the East of England to 154 in London. The total number of schemes per Round also varied notably, from a high of 140 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 RDA 1
13 49 35 19 10 22 148
2
9 41 19 24 11 15 119
3
9 48 33 19 14 16 139
4
7 22 21 14 10 14 88
5
11 38 23 24 8 14 118
6
16 46 20 21 18 19 140
Round 1-6 Total

65 244 151 121 71 100 752
Round 3-6 Total

43 154 97 78 50 63 485

Source: CLG
18
SRB project evaluation evidence

The evidence collation process The meta-evaluation is a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations and other data sources for SRB schemes. Our starting point for collecting evidence was the list of successful SRB bids provided 6 by CLG for Rounds 3 to 6 for the six participating RDAs . 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 evidence for these schemes as possible. We looked at a range of evidence to help us understand SRB schemes and their impacts. Completed evaluations were not available for every SRB scheme, despite every SRB scheme having an obligation to undertake an end of scheme evaluation. We reviewed final evaluations wherever possible; where this was not possible, we reviewed other available evidence such as interim evaluations, 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 an evaluation report that contained final (or assumed final) output and expenditure data, or monitoring data 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 evaluations were not available. We reviewed this monitoring data on an RDA-by-RDA basis by comparing the monitoring data to the final evaluation reports we had in our possession. We assumed that the data contained in the independent evaluations was accurate, so monitoring data needed to be consistent with the evaluation evidence across a range of evaluations in order to be considered reliable enough for our purposes. In some instances we were able to confirm the consistency of monitoring data with the evaluations we had received. When this was the case, we used the monitoring data to augment our evidence base for schemes where we did not have evaluations. However, if we were unable to confirm the consistency of 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 output categories. We also had to decide how to treat the interim and draft evaluation reports that we received. Where those reports provide output information to a particular point in the scheme, rather than the end of the scheme, we have treated those outputs as the best estimate of final outputs, rather than projecting them forward, recognising that extrapolation of past performance would not be appropriate. We also disregarded projected output figures on the grounds that we had only a limited basis for assessing their robustness. The implication of this is that our analysis may understate the actual outputs achieved 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 the coverage 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 expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources.
See the CLG website for more information http://www.communities.gov.uk/citiesandregions/regeneration/singleregenerationbudget/ 19 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Table 4.2: Total SRB evaluation evidence received by Round SRB Round Total number of SRB schemes Number of schemes with usable evidence received
71 49 76 93 289
Percentage of schemes for that Round
Percentage of budgeted expenditure
Amount of budgeted expenditure (m)

446.7 162.0 570.2 618.9 1,797.8
Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Total
139 88 118 140 485
51% 56% 64% 66% 60%
63% 72% 72% 64% 67%
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-nine schemes, covering 60% of all Rounds 3 to 6 schemes and covering 67% of Rounds 3 to 6 budgeted expenditure. The total expenditure listed in this table (1.8 billion) is different to the 1.4 billion of SRB expenditure incurred by the six RDAs between 2002/03 and 2006/07, as listed in Table 1.2, because some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07. The expenditure listed in Table 1.2 is the amount of expenditure for each RDA that is covered by this metaevaluation. The amount of expenditure covered in usable evaluations is relatively consistent across the Rounds but the percentage of schemes covered by usable evaluations increases steadily over the four Rounds, 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 found in Sections 5 to 10, explaining the amount of evidence that we have been able to gather for each individual region. We have used budgeted or forecast expenditure as our measurement for programme coverage for reasons of practicality the budgeted expenditure figures were independently produced by CLG, they are consistently available across all SRB schemes and they are available for all six RDAs. Not all of the evaluation evidence we received contained actual expenditure figures, and where evaluations did contain actual expenditure figures they were in practice very similar to the budgeted expenditure figures 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 containing the total number of schemes with evaluations received shows that we received evaluation evidence for 318 schemes. Table 4.4 illustrates that we found 289 of these to be usable.
20
Table 4.3: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round and by size of scheme SRB Round Number of schemes under 1m Number of schemes with evaluations received
9 13 9 22 53
Number of schemes 1m - 3m
Number of schemes with evaluations received

18 22 34 23 97
Number of schemes above 3m

48 22 41 57 168
29 24 22 44 119
40 35 43 26 144
70 29 53 70 222
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 Table 4.3 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 not evaluate smaller schemes. These figures will obviously vary between regions. Regional versions of Table 4.3 can be found in Sections 5 to 10, to provide more detail about the evaluation evidence that we have received for each individual region.
Data issues
We faced a range of difficulties in reconciling some of the expenditure data given in the evaluation reports with the budgeted or forecast expenditure figures contained in the list of successful SRB bids provided by CLG. It is worth highlighting some of these issues here, to illustrate the difficulties that have been encountered in the research process. SRB schemes were delivered by numerous partnerships that were responsible for monitoring outputs and spend and ensuring independent evaluation, and RDAs were not always involved at the outset of programmes. Each RDA had its own systems for monitoring and recording SRB performance in the region. Some RDAs have had real difficulty in locating evaluations, resulting in slow and timeconsuming searches of archives and storage facilities. Other RDAs have had difficulty confirming that programmes that were on the CLG list of approved bids actually took place. In other instances no evaluation 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 an extension of the data collection period from one month to two. In some instances, the evidence received was patchy and did not include the information which was sought, which resulted in us having to spend more time following up with the RDAs to try to locate the relevant information. Other reports which included the relevant information in some cases lacked clarity for example, outputs were sometimes listed without a clear description of the time period to which they referred. In many instances, 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. Where this was the case, we sought to confirm with the RDA if the evaluation related to a Round 1 or 2 scheme or if it was an amalgamation of different schemes. We were able to clear up most discrepancies in this way, but there were some evaluations that did not appear to correlate with the official list and did not immediately appear to be amalgamated schemes. In these instances we attempted to clarify with CLG and the RDA concerned if these were in fact additional schemes that had 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 not additional. One of the RDAs disputed the number of schemes attributed to them in the official CLG list, as they believe they have delivered a smaller number of schemes. Again, we sought clarification from CLG but we were not able to confirm the position. In the absence of firm evidence to the contrary, we have assumed that the CLG list is correct. We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individual evaluations can tell us about RDAs expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 4.4 below outlines what we have found. The figures include those schemes for which we received evidence that we were not 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 SRB Round Number of schemes with evaluations received Number of schemes with usable evaluations Number of evaluations with actual & forecast expenditure Number of evaluations containing gross outputs
63 45 69 87 264
Number of evaluations containing net outputs
75 57 84 102 318
71 49 74 95 289
56 44 60 70 230
0 2 4 5 11
Source: PwC/York Consulting
Around three-quarters of the evaluations we received contained forecast and actual expenditure. More than 80% contained some form of gross output information, which has formed the backbone of the meta-evaluation. Unfortunately, but not altogether surprisingly, hardly any of the evaluations we reviewed contained assessed net outputs just 3%. If our meta-evaluation had been informed by a stock of SRB evaluations containing assessments of both gross and net outputs derived using scheme-specific additionality coefficients generated through beneficiary surveys, we could potentially have used these evaluations as the basis for estimating the net 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 used the additionality coefficients generated through the SRB national evaluation to estimate the net outputs of the schemes. None of the evaluations with net outputs had undertaken the detailed work with beneficiaries, or covered the breadth of outputs, to make them suitable for being used in our work. There are, however, some SRB scheme evaluations currently being completed in a couple of the RDAs involved in this meta-evaluation that are expected to be IEF compliant: unfortunately, they have not been completed in time to be included in our work, but they will help to contribute to the wider assessment 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 new evidence on the pattern of additionality and that this would have implications for our work. In order for this meta-evaluation to be as compliant as it can with the IEF, the only option is to use a similar methodology to assess net impact as has been used in the completed SRB meta-evaluations in the East 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 order to estimate the net outputs. Although not ideal, this approach has been agreed with the wider RDA impact Steering Group as the best alternative to receiving locally-driven additionality information. More detail on this can be found later 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 this meta-evaluation were expected to spend over Rounds 3 to 6. The analysis is based on CLGs list of successful SRB bids. Table 4.5: Rounds 3 to 6 budgeted expenditure for the six participating RDAs ( million)
SRB Round Round 3 EEDA LDA NWDA SEEDA SWRDA YF Totals
Source: CLG
RDA
Round 4 8.7 73.1 53.1 23.0 10.4 57.8 226.1
Round 5 20.6 319.8 217.8 70.4 30.9 108.8 768.3
Round 6 32.7 300.0 231.6 70.0 31.7 230.2 896.2
Total 80.6 972.9 644.4 271.4 96.1 527.2 2,600.1
18.6 287.3 141.9 108.0 23.1 130.6 709.5
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 in Round 4. Round 4 received significantly less funding (9% of the total funding for Rounds 3 to 6), whilst Rounds 3, 5 and 6 received 27%, 30% and 35% respectively. Round 4 expenditure was dramatically reduced 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 the reduced expenditure and programme numbers in Round 4. We have also reviewed the SRB evaluations completed for the other three regions, to see if a review of other regional evaluations can solve the puzzle. We have not uncovered any specific reason behind this variation, which was also highlighted 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 insight into the reason for such a fall in SRB funding. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the most likely explanation relates to the change in Government in 1997. CLG officials we spoke to were unable to provide an official explanation; however, they did tell us that the original bidding guidance for Round 4 was issued just before the 1997 General Election and that after being elected, the new Labour Government issued amended bidding guidance, warning potential bidders that the amount of funding to be distributed would be severely constrained as a result of pressure from commitments from earlier Challenge Fund rounds.
23
RDA impact project relevant expenditure As noted above, the wider RDA impact project is focusing on assessing the impact of RDAs spending between 2002/03 and 2006/07. It is, therefore, important to understand the scale of actual SRB expenditure 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
Source: PwC/RDAs
2002/03
28.0 189.1 46.2 37.4 15.6 112.2 428.5
2003/04
16.6 132.2 97.6 41.1 12.3 92.0 391.9
2004/05
10.9 82.6 66.8 23.1 11.5 63.1 258.0
2005/06
7.0 72.4 67.9 20.3 9.6 36.3 213.7
2006/07
2.4 31.4 43.2 6.9 6.2 28.0 118.0
Total
64.9 507.8 321.8 128.8 55.2 331.6 1,410.1
It is important to remember that the expenditure shown in Table 4.6 does not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6, since some of the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 was incurred outside the period from 2002/03 to 2006/07. This means that some caution must be exercised when interpreting the evaluation evidence in the context of the wider evaluation of RDA spending. 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 than only certain years); and we have identified and received usable evaluation reports for only a proportion of all the Rounds 3 to 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 wide variety of sources and has been conducted in many different styles and formats, over a range of years. 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 and impacts that it achieved will be location and programme specific. In order to provide a framework for assessing the effectiveness of SRB interventions we have developed a generic, national SRB logic chain to provide a link between the rationale, activity, outputs and outcomes for each SRB intervention (and the projects within it). Such a logic chain is a standard tool in evaluation, and is expected within the IEF. The breadth and diversity of SRB schemes, and the fact that this is a meta-evaluation drawing on existing evaluations (rather than undertaking primary evaluation work) means that it is impractical to develop and apply specific logic chains for each SRB scheme in every region. A generic national SRB logic chain We have reviewed various SRB bidding and guidance documents, as well as some work on the rationale for SRB produced by the Department of Land Economy at Cambridge University (the national SRB evaluators), to gain a better understanding of the rationale, objectives and intentions of the 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 the logic 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 the problems in those markets; and institutional incapability to tackle the problems in a way that would break the vicious circle whereby 7 the problems of one generation are passed on to the next .
As outlined in the background to SRB section of this report, the rationale for SRB centred on a desire to tackle social exclusion and promote equality of opportunity. The focus of support was on the most deprived communities in England, with the aim being to reduce the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest, and between different groups in society. SRB was targeted at the most deprived areas in England and included an emphasis on tackling worklessness, reducing crime, improving health and raising educational achievements, with the development of multi-agency regeneration partnerships being a key feature. Round 1 SRB bidding 8 guidance produced by the Government Offices stated that SRB will help to improve local areas and enhance the quality of life of local people by tackling need, stimulating wealth creation and improving competitiveness, as part of an aim to make Government more responsive to local needs and priorities.and encourage sustainable local regeneration. Later SRB bidding guidance from the ODPM (Round 5) indicates the importance of equity considerations: SRBis an important instrument in the Government's drive to tackle social exclusion and promote equality. Its priority is to enhance the quality of life of local people in areas of need, by 9 reducing the gap between deprived and other areas, and between different groups. Design The SRB programme sought to simplify and streamline the assistance available for regeneration and brought together funding from eighteen previously separate programmes such as the Urban Programme, the Local Initiative Fund and Regional Enterprise Grants. The activities it supported were intended to make a real and lasting impact and to encourage partners to come together in a joint approach to meeting local needs and priorities.11 A central tenet of SRB was the concept of local regeneration partnerships, which were tasked with identifying local need and developing and delivering regeneration programmes accordingly. A key feature of SRB has been the development of multi-agency regeneration partnerships. These have 12 included public, private and voluntary sector organisations. Objectives The Government Offices Round 1 Bidding Guidance outlined seven broad objectives associated with the national SRB programme:
10
the enhancement of employment prospects of local people through training;
Evaluation of Regeneration Activities Funded under the Single Regeneration Budget Bidding Round: The Evaluation Framework Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, March 1997 8 Bidding Guidance: A guide to funding from the Single Regeneration Budget, Government Offices for the Regions 9 SRB Round 5 bidding guidance: A guide for partnerships, ODPM 10 CLG SRB website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/citiesandregions/regeneration/singleregenerationbudget/ 11 See 7 12 See 7 25 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
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 sports opportunities.
13
Round 4 bidding guidance from ODPM indicated that the activities [SRB] supports are intended to make a real and sustainable impact. [SRB] encourages local people, businesses and other organisations to come together as partners in a joint approach to meet the needs and priorities which they 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 2.6 billion being spent across the six RDAs participating in this meta-evaluation in Rounds 3 to 6 alone. In addition, 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 billion 14 came from the private sector . Activities The Government Offices Round 1 Bidding Guidance explained that SRB funding was intended to be used as either part of an overall strategy for a relatively wide area or to contribute to a self-contained strategy for a local area, and should aim to achieve at least one of the seven broad objectives for SRB (employment, competitiveness, infrastructure, housing, access, crime and quality of life). Activities focused on a wider area could:
15
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 most effectively to growth; and enable a particularly disadvantaged group (e.g. residents, young people, ethnic minorities) to benefit 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 14 15
Challenge Fund Round Four Bidding Guidance, ODPM As 1 As 8 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
26
be small enough for the sums of money involved to show a real impact and deliver worthwhile results that could be measured; and focus on different types of area, such as a city centre, housing estate(s) or an area with other investment opportunities.
The schemes themselves were varied, ranging from activities which could be considered to be of a more 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, such as personal and social development projects, community safety initiatives, support for community and voluntary 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 indicated that SRB funding should be used to meet one of these objectives. To this end a range of key output measures were developed, to act as indicators of progress and performance against the programmes objectives 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, 2C and 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 outputs 7A 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 SRB outputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets. Our review of the evaluation evidence has allowed us to collate gross output data across the 63 official SRB output categories, which are listed below in Tables 4.7 to 4.9. A template was produced (and agreed with the RDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidence we received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categories that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed. This recording template has 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, the recording template contained a range of qualitative fields, covering:
key outcomes and impacts qualitative and quantitative, intended and unintended, positive and negative;
27
partnership working e.g. which groups were involved, structures, processes and the successes and failures of working with different groups; community engagement e.g. which groups were involved, structures, processes and the levels of engagement between different groups; leadership including the operation of programme management structures and the roles of the organisations involved; governance including the operation of project appraisal, oversight and scrutiny structures and the roles/involvement of different organisations; strategic added value strategic leadership and catalyst, strategic influence, leverage, synergy and engagement; and programme strengths and weaknesses.
This recognition of schemes economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs is important in terms of assessing schemes overall performance. Tables 4.7 to 4.9 list all the outputs that we have collected data for through our meta-evaluation recording template and outline the categories that we have assigned them to. Core RDA outputs As outlined above, by 2005 there were only six SRB outputs that counted towards RDAs delivery targets, because of the move towards a regime that measured core outputs. These are listed in Table 4.7 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 1A (i) 1A (ii) 1C 2C (ii) 6B 8E Number of jobs created Number of jobs safeguarded Number of people trained obtaining qualifications New businesses supported surviving 52 weeks Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha) Number of community enterprise start ups Output description
Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG data
Other economic outputs Of the remaining fifty-seven outputs, we have categorised the following twenty-three as other economic outputs outputs that have a distinct economic focus to them, but which are not included in the RDAs core outputs. Table 4.8: Other economic outputs
SRB Output 1A (iii) 1B 1D 1E 1F (i) 1F (ii)
28
Output description Number of construction jobs (person weeks) Number of pupils benefiting from projects to improve attainment Number of residents accessing employment through training advice Number of training weeks Number people trained gaining jobs Number people trained gaining jobs who were formerly unemployed
SRB Output 1G 1G (ii) 1I (i) 1J 1K (i) 1K (ii) 1L (i) 2A 2B (i) 2B (ii) 2C (i) 2C (iii) 2D 6A 6C 6D (i) 6D (ii)
Output description Number entering self employment Number entering self employment who were formerly unemployed Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job Number of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal and social development Number of employers in collaborative projects with educational institutions to improve student performance Number of students in collaborative projects Number of teachers in target area on placement into business Number of new business start ups New business/commercial floorspace (m ) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m ) New businesses supported Surviving 78 weeks Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB assisted activities Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha) Number of buildings back into use Roads built (km) Roads improved (km)
2 2
Other non-economic outputs This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being other noneconomic outputs. Table 4.9: Other non-economic outputs
SRB Output 3A (i) 3A (ii) 3A (iii) 3A (iv) 3A (v) 3A (vi) 3B 5A (i) 5A (ii) 5A (iii) 5B (i) 5B (ii) 5C Output description Number of private dwellings completed Number of private dwellings improved Number of local authority dwellings completed Number of local authority dwellings improved Number of housing association dwellings completed Number of housing association dwellings improved Number of dwellings in tenant management organisation Number benefiting community safety initiatives Aged over 60 Females Number of dwellings with upgraded security Number of commercial buildings with upgraded security Number of community safety initiatives
29
SRB Output 5D (i) 5D (ii) 6E 6F 7A (i) 7A (ii) 7A (iii) 7A (iv) 7A (v) 7A (vi) 7B (i) 7B (ii) 7B (iii) 7B (iv) 7B (v) 7B (vi) 8A (i) 8A (ii) 8C 8D 10A
Output description Number of youth crime prevention initiatives Number attending crime prevention initiatives Number of traffic calming measures Number of waste management/recycling schemes People access to new health facilities People access to new sports facilities People access to new cultural facilities Number of new health facilities Number of new sports facilities Number of new cultural facilities Number using improved health facilities Number using improved sports facilities Number using improved cultural facilities Number of health facilities improved Number of sports facilities improved Number of cultural facilities improved Number of voluntary organisations supported Number of community organisations supported Number of individuals involved in voluntary work Number of employee volunteering schemes 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 net outputs. Outcomes SRB Round 6 bidding guidance indicated that SRB schemes are expected to make a significant and 16 lasting difference to the areas and groups they are targeted on. 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 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
30
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 no qualifications; sustained improvements in absolute/relative skill levels and employment rates in target deprived/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 in Figure 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 constructed retrospectively, several years after the schemes themselves took place, and has been used to collate the evidence from evaluations that were completed without reference to it (and possibly any other logic chain). It is, therefore, less effective in this context of a secondary evaluation than it would be for a primary evaluation, and it is clearly only capable of use as an indicator of the national SRB programmes objectives, inputs, outputs and outcomes.
31
Figure 4.1: Logic model for the national SRB Programme
Market Failure in one or all of labour, land/property, capital and housing markets; housing; Failure of mainstream programmes to address the breadth, depth and interactive nature of all problems problems; Institutional incapability to tackle the problems Institutional incapability in tackle the would to a way that problems break the vicious circle in a way that would whereby vicious circle break thethe problems of one generation are whereby the problems passed onto the next; of one generationnext; on to the are passed onto the next Government desire to Desire to tackle social tackle social promote exclusion andexclusion Tacklesocial exclusion equality; and promote equality equality; Government desire to enhance enhance the Desire to the quality of Enhance the quality of quality of life of local life of local people in people in areas of areas of need, by need, by gap between reducing reducing gap between and other deprived deprived and other areas. areas areas.
The design of SRB

Simplify and streamline the
assistance available for regeneration; regeneration

Brought together funding
from eighteen previously separate programmes; programmes

Local regeneration
partnerships, tasked with identifying local need and developing and delivering regeneration programmes accordingly; accordingly
The activities it supported Intended to make a real
Estimated 5.7billion 5.8billion funding funding across six Estimated 5.8billion across funding across six rounds six rounds; rounds; 2.6billion between the six participating 2.6billion between 2.64billion between RDAs participating the sixin Rounds 36; RDAs in Rounds 3-6 36; Leveraged 26billion across all six Leveraged 26billion rounds, including across all six 9billion from private rounds, including sector; 9billion from private sector; Staff; Staff; Materials; Materials; Information; Information;in kind. Investment Partner in kind.
Training; Training Construction; Educational House building Attainment; Community safety initiatives; Education Enterprise Support; Personal and social Enterprise development projects; Land reclamation; Community Road building; safety and drugs Increasing access to teaching health/sports/cultural facilities; Supporting voluntary Enterprise and community organisations; Traffic calming measures; Waste management and recycling schemes; Childcare provision; Capacity building initiatives.
63 different 63 different outputs Core RDA outputs Core RDA jobs created, jobs created, safeguarded, safeguarded, training, business training, survival, community survival, enterprise, land enterprise, reclamation; reclamation. Other economic Other outputs measures outputs related to training, related business survival, business infrastructure, infrastructure, targeting of specific targeting groups; groups. Other non-economic Other non-economic outputs disparate outputs measures related to measures housing, health, housing, community safety. community
Enhanced quality Enhanced quality of of life of people; life of locallocal people; Increased business Increased business competitiveness; competitiveness; Enhanced Enhanced employment employment prospects for prospects for locallocal people; people;
Improved local Improved local areas; areas; Improved housing; Improved housing; Improved community Improved community safety; safety;
Improved health Improved health
Improved economic Improved economic performance, performance, productivity productivity and and wealth creation; wealth creation; Sustained increase Sustained increase in in target target areaarea employment rates employment rates and and absolute/relative absolute/relative skill skill levels; levels; More people More people with with high-level high-level qualifications qualifications and and fewer people no fewer people with with no qualifications; qualifications.
profiles and reduced profiles and reduced health inequalities; health inequalities; Reduction in concentrated concentrated deprivation; deprivation; Improved air quality;
Reduction in
and intended to make a werelasting impact and to develop lasting impact real and multi-agency and regeneration partnerships to develop multi-agency . regeneration partnerships
Improved
environment and Improved infrastructure. environment and infrastructure. Improved air quality;
32
Assessment of additionality
Once the reported gross outputs from the evaluations had been collated, the next step was to convert the recorded gross outputs into estimated net outputs to provide an assessment of the impact of RDAs spending on the SRB programme. As outlined earlier in this section, and as anticipated, there was very limited additionality information to inform this estimation process from the scheme-level evaluation evidence we were provided with. Furthermore, we assessed the potential feasibility of additional research with beneficiaries, as a way of potentially augmenting the evidence available on SRB impact. Our research, which included conversations with the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) and the University of Cambridge (the national SRB evaluators) and a review of beneficiary information in the initial tranche of Rounds 5 and 6 SRB evaluations in our possession, concluded that there were significant practical 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 categorised on 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 similar approach to that already used in the West Midlands (by AWM) and in the North East (by ONE) to estimate net outputs. Both these meta-evaluations used the additionality coefficients derived in the SRB national evaluation to generate estimates of the regions net outputs. The SRB national evaluation was an eight-year study undertaken by the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge. The study focused on SRB Rounds 1 and 2. Separate additionality coefficients were generated for all 63 SRB outputs described previously, based on 20 case studies conducted in all regions across the country, including interviews with project managers and work with beneficiaries. The coefficients focused on measuring additionality at the local level. Both the West Midlands and North East meta-evaluations concluded that the coefficients from the national evaluation were likely to be more robust and reliable than anything that could be generated locally from the existing information available. Both evaluations were assessed by PwC as being largely fit for purpose in the context of the overall RDA impact project. We have also reviewed evaluations of other national programmes with some similar characteristics to the SRB programme, such as the New Deal for Communities, the Coalfields Programme and Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders, to see if there is any further information around additionality in those evaluations that we can use in our work. For example, last years interim evaluation of the 17 Coalfields Programme considers 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 the circumstances supported by the Coalfields Programme, the limited number of outputs covered in comparison to SRB and the reports uncertainty over business-related additionality rates all lead us to conclude that the SRB national evaluation is our best source of information about additionality for this meta-evaluation.
17
Regenerating the English Coalfields interim evaluation of the coalfield regeneration programmes CLG, March 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
33
Additionality calculations
Table 4.10 outlines the additionality calculations that we will use for adjusting each regions core RDA gross outputs into net outputs. These additionality coefficients are taken from the SRB national evaluation. Table 4.10: Additionality coefficients used for generating net core RDA outputs Output category Proportion of outputs that are additional
41% 43% 56% 44% 49% 78%
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: SRB national evaluation
Table 4.11 outlines the additionality calculations that we will use for adjusting each regions gross other economic outputs into net outputs. Table 4.11: Additionality coefficients used for generating net other economic outputs Output category Proportion of outputs that are additional
42% 53% 62% 36% 50% 48% 57% 56% 61% 47% 60% 49% 61% 42%
2
1A (iii) Number of construction jobs 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial floorspace (m )
2
36% 45%
34
Output category
Proportion of outputs that are additional

44% 46% 43% 76% 53% 53% 75%
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)
Table 4.12 outlines the additionality calculations that we will use for adjusting each regions gross other non-economic outputs into net outputs. Table 4.12: Additionality coefficients used for generating net other non-economic outputs Output category Proportion of outputs that are additional
42% 47% 0% 50% 45% 50% 65% 52% 49% 47% 49% 56% 51% 54% 70% 47% 76% 63% 61% 66% 65% 62% 68%
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
35
Output category
Proportion of outputs that are additional

63% 49% 48% 50% 60% 49% 62% 66% 57% 65% 50%
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
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 RDAs but, as Table 4.2 shows, we have received evaluation evidence covering 67% of the six RDAs SRB expenditure during Rounds 3 to 6. Our evidence base for assessing the impact of SRB in the six regions 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 schemes funded in Rounds 3 to 6. We do not believe it is helpful to attempt to gross up the impacts based on the available evidence for two main reasons:
the differences between the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 are so great that we cannot be sure how representative the sample of SRB schemes for which there are usable evaluations is of the overall population of SRB schemes: this means that the potential margins of error around any grossed up estimates are likely to be considerable, even assuming it was clear which grossing up method 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 the coming months: in some cases, these additional evaluations account for a significant amount of expenditure and will fill key gaps in the evidence base and, therefore, by not grossing up now, we will be able to complement the evidence of this meta-evaluation in the final analysis of RDA spending.
We have, therefore, decided that the best option at this stage is to present results and conclusions based 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), to provide an assessment of value for money. We have considered whether to perform a similar calculation as part of this meta-evaluation but believe it would be inappropriate to do so for several reasons.
SRB schemes were set up to achieve a variety of objectives, some of which were economic but many of which were not. In order to undertake a meaningful assessment of value for money, it is important to recognise the diversity of outputs and impacts and relate them to the relevant inputs. This can be done either by finding a way of disaggregating expenditure so that it can be attributed to specific outputs 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, not least because expenditure that went towards achieving economic objectives sometimes also went towards achieving objectives that were more environmental or social in nature. We might also seek to compare economic outputs with the expenditure responsible for generating these outputs. Again, the evaluation reports we have seen understandably provide no basis for such an analysis. Without this data we are not able to compare inputs (expenditure) with the relevant outputs on a disaggregated basis. The alternative would be to compare overall bundles of expenditure at the individual programme level with bundles of programme outputs. Given the diversity of SRB schemes, this would require a way to be found of expressing the outputs of SRB expenditure using a common numeraire. Many of the other evaluations 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 and environmental outputs of SRB programmes in terms of value added. Moreover, few of the evaluations we have received express the economic outputs in terms of GVA. Consequently, we believe that it would be potentially unhelpful and misleading to seek to assess value for money of SRB schemes at an aggregate level. In the circumstances, therefore, we have not sought to undertake a value for money calculation across the programme.
Limitations of the methodology

The work undertaken as part of the meta-evaluation has been a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations of SRB schemes, collated and analysed to estimate the impact of SRB spending by RDAs in Rounds 3 to 6. Wherever possible we reviewed final evaluations; where this was not possible we reviewed 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 this methodology:
This is not a primary evaluation We are entirely dependent on the quality and quantity of the evaluations we have received, rather than being able to review RDAs SRB programmes at first hand. In practice, this has meant that we have had to rely on a range of evaluations that were undertaken to different standards, for different reasons and at different points in time. Although this approach was the most practical in the circumstances, it is not as good as being able to conduct a primary evaluation. There was no clear evaluation framework for SRB The timing of many of the SRB evaluations means that they were undertaken before the IEF was established within the RDA network. Aside from the Green Book, this meant that there was no clear framework to guide the scope of the evaluations. As a consequence, the evaluations vary in their scope and approach. The evaluation evidence base is incomplete The SRB evaluation evidence base we have received does not cover all SRB schemes in scope, despite the strenuous efforts of RDAs to track down as much evidence for us as they could, and not all the evaluation evidence we have received is usable. It is evident that not all SRB schemes conducted an evaluation, even though an evaluation was a mandatory requirement of SRB funding. We are therefore only dealing with a sample of the overall population of SRB schemes. Corporate memory of the SRB programme is limited It is a long time since many of the SRB schemes began, and in some cases it is also a long time since they finished. This has meant that many SRB teams have been disbanded and many of the people with relevant knowledge about the
37
RDAs SRB programmes have moved on. This has made it harder to gain a full understanding 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 the impact that SRB schemes have had, to understand more about what would have happened in the absence of these interventions and to determine the dimensions of additionality. In practice, this has rarely happened. The estimates of additionality reflect local rather than regional impacts The additionality coefficients we have taken from the national evaluation are estimates of local, rather than regional impacts (based on SRB programmes from Rounds 1 and 2). Although they have been used by AWM and ONE, they are not ideal, although this approach has been accepted by the wider RDA impact Steering Group.
Stakeholder consultations
Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with six key strategic stakeholders in each region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitative information about the nature and impact of SRB in the region, to help us understand some of the nuances that were not necessarily apparent from reading evaluation reports. A topic guide was produced and agreed with the RDAs, and stakeholder consultations took place during June and July. The evaluation team spoke to a range of people, both within the RDA and amongst external partners, to try to understand more about the RDAs overall SRB programmes and about some of the issues related to the delivery of individual projects and schemes. Who we spoke to was entirely at the discretion of the RDAs the six stakeholders were nominated by the RDAs, as the people they believed would be the most helpful to us in this task. A full list of stakeholder consultees is included at Appendix C. The stakeholder consultations proved beneficial in augmenting the evaluation evidence we have reviewed and in helping to inform our thinking about the impact of SRB in the regions.
38
5 The impact of SRB in the East of England
Introduction
This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the East of England region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this report and 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 19,000 2 km of 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 English regions. The regions close proximity to London provides a number of strategic advantages, such as access to international gateways and transport corridors, leaving it well placed to take advantage of the increasing globalisation of business activity. The East of England has a growing population of around 5.5 million. As in the rest of the UK, the regional population is ageing (17% of the population is over 65). Cultural diversity in the region is increasing, 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 UKs output, the East of England is the fourth largest regional economy in the UK, a ranking which it has held consistently in the last ten years. During this time the regional economy has experienced average year-on-year growth of 5%, in line with the UK average. Regional GVA per head has risen from
39
13,093 in 1997 to 19,599 in 2006, making it one of only three regions above the UK GVA per head 18 19 average . The region boasts high levels of employment (77%) compared to the national average. It has a particularly strong service sector and is renowned for its high quality research and development activity, 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 8,120 20 most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs) in England are in the Eastern Region. Therefore the East of England is a relatively prosperous region (in national terms), with the fewest number of very deprived SOAs (316 in the bottom quartile of the IMD). The East of England is characterised by small pockets 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 (EEDAs successor to the SRB programme). These are largely county level subregions, with Peterborough, Haven Gateway and Thames Gateway as additional sub-regions. Table 5.1 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 in the sub-region in bottom IMD quartile nationally
48 9 9 34 6 73 31 16 90 316
% of SOAs in the subregion as a whole
% of regional total in lowest IMD quartile nationally
Bedfordshire and Luton Cambridgeshire Essex Haven Gateway Hertfordshire Norfolk Peterborough Suffolk Thames Gateway Total
11% 10% 13% 13% 19% 15% 3% 5% 12% 100%
15.2% 2.8% 2.8% 10.8% 1.9% 23.1% 9.8% 5.1% 28.5% 100.0%
As outlined in Table 5.1, almost half of the most deprived SOAs in the East of England are in the Norfolk and Thames Gateway sub-regions. According to the 2004 IMD data, the highest concentration of 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 of schemes that took place in each SRB Round and providing a comparison with the national picture.
18 19 20
Office of National Statistics website: see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gva1207.pdf Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England, Final Draft submitted to government June 2008 See 5 for more detail on Super Output Areas PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
40
Table 5.2: Number of SRB schemes in the Eastern Region SRB Round Number of SRB schemes in the region (% of total regional schemes)
13 (20.0%) 9 (13.8%) 9 (13.8%) 7 (10.8%) 11 (16.9%) 16 (24.6%) 65 (100.0%) 43 (66.2%)
Number of SRB schemes nationally (% of total national schemes)

201 (19.6%) 172 (16.7%) 182 (17.7%) 121 (11.8%) 163 (15.9%) 189 (18.4%) 1,028 (100.0%) 655 (63.7%)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Overall Total Rounds 3-6 Total
Source: CLG
The East of England ran fewer SRB schemes than any other region in England, which is probably due to its relatively low levels of deprivation. This is true of the SRB programme as a whole, as well as for those 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 the overall 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 were not listed among the CLG successful bids. We were unable to identify any conclusive evidence that these schemes were directly funded by CLG. We have therefore assumed that the CLG list is correct and 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 the amount and proportion of expenditure that took place in each SRB Round and again providing a comparison with the national picture. Table 5.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure SRB Round SRB Expenditure ( million)
25.1 35.3 18.6 8.7 20.6 32.7 140.9 80.5
% of regions total SRB expenditure

17.8% 25.1% 13.2% 6.1% 14.6% 23.2% 100.0% 57.1%
% of national SRB Round expenditure

2.3% 3.1% 2.0% 2.7% 2.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.3%
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Overall total Rounds 3-6 Total
Source: CLG
41
As Table 5.3 shows, the East of England received moderate levels of SRB funding in comparison to the national picture. In fact, the East received less SRB funding than any other region. This is perhaps to be expected, given its IMD profile. In fact the East of England received the smallest amount of SRB funding in every Round apart from Round 6, where the South West received approximately 1 million less. Table 5.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of EEDAs budgeted expenditure per SRB Round. Table 5.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round, per sub-region ( million) Sub-region
Bedfordshire & Luton Cambridgeshire Essex Haven Gateway Hertfordshire Norfolk Peterborough Suffolk Thames Gateway Region-wide Total Source: PwC analysis of CLG data
Round 3
1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 2.5 0.0 5.0 2.7 0.0 18.6
Round 4
0.3 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.7 1.9 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 8.7
Round 5
2.0 0.6 0.0 2.2 2.6 2.4 5.9 1.4 2.8 0.5 20.6
Round 6
15.8 1.5 0.4 0.5 1.1 5.3 0.0 2.0 6.1 0.0 32.7
Totals
19.2 2.1 3.3 2.7 13.8 12.1 5.9 9.0 11.9 0.5 80.5
At a sub-regional level budgeted SRB expenditure broadly reflects the IMD data, with the top three most deprived sub-regions (Thames Gateway, Norfolk and Bedfordshire and Luton) receiving the greatest proportion of SRB expenditure overall. However, it was noted by a key stakeholder that in earlier Rounds the SRB funding may have been skewed towards the sub-regions that were not necessarily the most in need. This was because some sub-regions, like Hertfordshire, were better at writing bids than others. This led to EEDA becoming increasingly involved in developing bids, devoting resources to capacity building in the most deprived areas in order to increase their capability to write and win bids for SRB and other funding sources. This focus on capacity building increased in later funding 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
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total Source: EEDA
SRB expenditure ( million)

28.0 16.6 10.9 7.0 2.4 64.9
42
EEDAs total relevant expenditure for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is 384.8 million. This means that SRB accounts for 17% of EEDAs expenditure in the overall RDA impact evaluation. The figures in Table 5.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that we have evaluated, as some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 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 for SRB schemes. We are therefore heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of evaluation evidence we have received from the RDA. Due to the time that had elapsed between the end of the SRB programme and the beginning of our meta-evaluation, there were significant issues in identifying and gathering usable evidence. The issues 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 SRB Round (e.g. Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group and Building on the Foundations, Kings Lynn). This created difficulties in terms of separating outputs and understanding the impact of individual schemes. Another evaluation (Regenerating Peterborough) took a case study approach, identifying outputs for certain projects rather than the entire SRB scheme in question. This approach therefore is likely to have underestimated the gross outputs of the whole scheme, as it did not report all the outputs of all the projects. A further evaluation for Lowestoft into Work was an interim evaluation, meaning that while the targets were expressed for the entire scheme (2000 to 2006), the outputs achieved and actual funding were to year three of the scheme (March 2003). Similarly, the Luton Dunstable report is based on progress to March 2004, which represents roughly half of the seven-year scheme and which is also likely to underestimate the outputs from this scheme. No final evaluation report was identified for either scheme. Table 5.6 outlines the amount of usable evidence we received per SRB Round and indicates the coverage 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 expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources. Table 5.6: 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 budgeted Expenditure for that Round Amount of budgeted Expenditure for that Round ( million)
13.4 3.4 10.5 18.9 46.2
9 7 11 16 43
4 2 3 7 16
44.4% 28.6% 27.3% 43.8% 37.2%
72.0% 39.4% 51.2% 57.8% 57.4%
Source: PwC, based on evaluation evidence received from EEDA. Expenditure in this table refers to budgeted SRB expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from CLG data. 43 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
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 in the 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 to 44% in Round 3, from 39% of expenditure in Round 4 to 72% in Round 3, and from 3.4 million of expenditure 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 evidence that we were ultimately not able to use. Table 5.7: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round and by size of scheme SRB Round Number of schemes under 1m Number of schemes with evaluations received
0 2 3 9 14

2 2 3 1 8

2 0 1 1 4
3 4 4 9 20
4 3 6 4 17
2 0 1 3 6
Source: PwC. Expenditure categories relate to SRB money only.
Table 5.7 indicates lower levels of coverage of medium-spend schemes, as evaluation evidence was received for less than half of the 1 million to 3 million schemes. There were higher levels of coverage among schemes of less than 1 million or more than 3 million, with approximately twothirds coverage of each. The level of coverage increases with each Round. However, as can be seen when comparing Tables 5.6 and 5.7, not all evaluations provided usable evidence in terms of output data. 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 and their impact. Wherever possible we reviewed final evaluations; where this was not possible we reviewed whatever evidence was available, such as interim evaluations, 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 an evaluation report that contained final (or assumed final) output and expenditure data, or monitoring data 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 the output data where evaluation reports were incomplete or missing. We assumed that the data contained in independent evaluations was correct, so monitoring data needed to be consistent with evaluation 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 we had received and we were able to use the monitoring data to augment our evidence base for two schemes in this way. However, if we were unable to confirm the consistency of the monitoring data, or if the monitoring data was incomplete, we took the decision to either not use the data at all or to use it only 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 qualitative comments, and these were utilised as much as possible. Table 5.8 provides an overview of the amount of output and expenditure data we found in the evaluation evidence we received.
Table 5.8: Prevalence of output/expenditure data in evaluation evidence received SRB Round Total number of evaluations received Evaluations with actual and forecast expenditure included Evaluations with gross outputs included
4 2 3 7 16
Evaluations with net outputs included

Source: PwC
4 4 7 11 26
4 2 1 5 12
0 0 0 0 0
As shown in Table 5.8, approximately three-fifths of the evaluation reports we received considered gross outputs. However, there was a lack of consideration of additionality at a regional level none of the 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 apply the additionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to EEDAs gross SRB outputs, in order to estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, this approach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the best option available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4, which explains the meta-evaluations approach and methodology.
Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with six key strategic stakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitative information about the nature and impact of SRB in the region in effect, to understand some of the nuances 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 to understand more about EEDAs overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to the delivery 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 most helpful 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 we have reviewed.
Gross outputs
We have collected gross output data from the evaluation evidence we have reviewed across the sixtythree official SRB output categories. A template was produced (and agreed with all the participating RDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidence we received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categories that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed. This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRB outputs 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 qualitative fields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; community
engagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths and weaknesses. This recognition of schemes economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs is important in terms of assessing performance. We have separated the sixty-three gross outputs we have 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 SRB outputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets. We have classified these as core RDA outputs for the purposes of this meta-evaluation. Table 5.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in 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.
46
Table 5.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the Eastern Region Output category
1A (i) Jobs created 1A (ii) Jobs safeguarded 1C People trained obtaining qualifications 2C (ii) New business supported surviving 52 wks 6B Land improved/ Reclaimed for development (Ha) 8E No. of community enterprise start-ups
Bedfordshire & Luton

197 21 528
Essex
13 13 271
Haven Gateway
94 0 623
Hertfordshire
312 428 1,846
Norfolk
143 116 412
Peterborough
513 24 550
Suffolk
184 21 2,004
Thames Gateway
163 6 1,866
Total
1,618 629 8,100
12
142
165
12
21
12
15
52
96
Source: PwC analysis, based on SRB evaluation evidence received from EEDA
47
The evaluation evidence which we reviewed shows that in gross terms the SRB programme has created 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 subregion. The SRB programme also led to 8,100 people gaining qualifications, a significant proportion of which resulted from schemes in the Suffolk, Thames and Haven Gateway areas. Of the new businesses supported, 165 survived for at least one year these were predominantly in the Haven Gateway subregion, as a result of the new Enterprise Centre built under the Brighter Future for East Colchester SRB scheme. Twenty-one hectares of land were improved or reclaimed for development this was chiefly in the Thames and Haven Gateway sub-regions, as a result of the Tilbury Port and A Brighter Future for East Colchester schemes. The SRB programme resulted in the establishment of almost 100 community enterprise start-ups, almost half of which emerged from the Working Together Suffolk Rural scheme. Other economic outputs 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 RDAs core outputs. Table 5.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in 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.
48
Table 5.10: Gross other economic outputs in the Eastern Region Output category
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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 (m ) 2B (ii) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m ) 2C (i) New businesses supported
2 2

1,309 4,934 226 2,437 105 67 85 42 75 16,246
Essex
0 23 39 965 5 11 2 0 24 85
Haven Gateway
8,292 0 210 577 84 53 73 12 0 8,235
Hertfordshire
1,395 27,376 4,141 9,465 321 86 41 18 371 23,671
Norfolk
1,282 610 34 1,859 1 0 25 16 0 4,462
Peterborough
0 745 31 43 0 0 0 0 0 1,313
Suffolk
8,495 3,451 135 14,712 171 109 81 33 50 7,159
Thames Gateway
57 0 315 4,084 302 289 42 42 23 8,121
Total
20,830 37,139 5,131 34,142 989 615 349 163 543 69,292
13 167 0 66 0 513 66
7 272 0 3 0 0 21
0 0 0 28 420 650 110
476 2,890 232 79 0 200 238
9 116 0 31 0 0 0
70 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 0 0 66 959 1,058 1
0 42 0 34 37,167 1,774 21
659 3,487 232 307 38,546 4,195 457
49
Output category
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)

12 1,285 5 3 0 8
Essex
0 306 0 0 0 0
Haven Gateway
186 726 1 0 1 0
Hertfordshire
20 679 2 2 0 1
Norfolk
0 221 2 7 1 0
Peterborough
0 0 0 0 0 0
Suffolk
1 239 2 89 0 0
Thames Gateway
6 424 1 50 2 1
Total
225 3,880 13 151 4 10
50
As well as the core outputs discussed above, the evaluation evidence we reviewed identified the following 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 the Kirkley Regeneration and Brighter Future for East Colchester schemes in the Suffolk and Haven Gateway sub-regions; around 37,000 pupils benefited from projects to improve attainment, over half of which was attributed to the Borehamwood scheme in the Hertfordshire sub-region; more than 5,000 residents accessed employment through SRB-funded training advice the vast majority of these participated in one of the four SRB schemes in the Hertfordshire sub-region, of which the most significant 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 usable evaluation evidence these were largely in the Suffolk and Hertfordshire sub-regions. Almost 1,000 people who received SRB-funded training gained jobs, of which approximately one-third took part in schemes in Hertfordshire. Thames Gateway schemes accounted for another third. Moreover, the schemes led to 615 people gaining jobs who were formerly unemployed again, the Thames Gateway sub-region showed a particular strength in this area. The evaluation reports indicated that in gross terms 349 people entered self-employment, with 163 people who were formerly unemployed entering self-employment. 543 people from the disadvantaged groups targeted by the SRB programme gained a job, with the majority of this activity (68%) being in the Hertfordshire sub-region. Almost 70,000 young people were said to have benefited from SRB projects to promote personal and social development. Over a third of these young people were involved in schemes in the Hertfordshire sub-region, with a further quarter benefiting from the Luton Dunstable scheme in the Bedfordshire and Luton 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 the Hertfordshire sub-region. More than 230 teachers in the Hertfordshire sub-region took up business placements as part of the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership schemes. Over 300 business start-ups were created, according to the evaluation evidence we reviewed. A quarter of these start-ups were in the Hertfordshire sub-region, with the Bedfordshire and Luton and Suffolk sub-regions each accounting for a further fifth of the overall gross output. More than 450 new businesses were supported through the SRB programme, over half of which were involved in the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership schemes in the Hertfordshire sub-region. Of the new businesses that received support, 225 survived 78 weeks, of which the vast majority of these (83%) were involved in the Brighter Future for East Colchester scheme in Haven Gateway. Nearly 3,900 businesses were advised as a result of SRBassisted activities, a third of which were reached through the Luton Dunstable scheme. 96% of the 2 38,546m of improved commercial floorspace was attributed to the Tilbury Port scheme in the Thames 2 Gateway sub-region. A further 4,195 m of new floorspace was developed, again largely attributable to the 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 land was improved or reclaimed for open space, over a third of which was attributed to the Luton Dunstable scheme. The Kirkley Regeneration Initiative in Suffolk contributed to 58% of the 151 buildings put back into use. 4 kilometres of new roads were built in the region, as a result of the Tilbury Port (Thames Gateway), Brighter Future for East Colchester (Haven Gateway) and Cobholm & Lichfield Community Partnership (Thames Gateway) schemes. A further 10 kilometres of roads were improved, 80% of which were a result of the Luton Dunstable scheme. Other non-economic outputs This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being other noneconomic outputs. The range of outputs covered here is an illustration of the varying non-economic motives behind many SRB schemes. Table 5.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in 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.
52
Table 5.11: Gross other non-economic outputs in the Eastern Region Bedfordshire & Luton
0 39 0 32 0 0 0 10,315 2,354 5,264 1,278 93 128 63
Output category
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
Essex
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haven Gateway
203 0 0 0 93 0 0 520 66 156 0 0 117 19
Hertfordshire
0 5 0 65 0 3,196 0 38,481 10,970 6,446 4,324 77 658 33
Norfolk
0 37 0 282 0 0 0 9,082 1,150 2,267 3,691 9 13 13
Peterborough
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,342 103 401 0 0 23 18
Suffolk
0 247 0 0 0 22 0 3,430 0 0 263 20 66 41
Thames Gateway
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,350 4,394 11,380 94 31 37 8
Total
203 328 0 379 93 3,218 0 101,520 19,037 25,914 9,650 230 1,042 195
53
Output category
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
Essex
Haven Gateway
Hertfordshire
Norfolk
Peterborough
Suffolk
Thames Gateway
Total
13,885 4 0 20,083 4,763 62,866 6 4 5 1,065 2,791 504 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 0 0 97 0
1,098 1 0 7,068 7,572 8,471 1 4 1 0 0 365 4
945 4 0 7,510 53,221 17,403 13 1 8 1,977 32,612 5,935 9
160 0 0 5,914 723 1,387 11 4 4 1,369 106 32 3
54 0 0 1,017 81 1,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 3 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 1
0 2 98 0 0 52,349 0 98 9 0 0 31,047 0
16,142 13 101 41,592 66,360 143,852 35 114 59 4,411 35,509 37,980 24
54
Output category
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

4 2 466 385 756 1 96
Essex
0 2 545 630 229 117 40
Haven Gateway
0 0 127 302 3,985 0 515
Hertfordshire
3 15 644 250 2,822 40 519
Norfolk
0 0 86 95 600 1 160
Peterborough
0 0 97 77 643 0 105
Suffolk
2 0 174 259 415 26 580
Thames Gateway
0 7 74 110 719 6 20
Total
9 26 2,213 2,108 10,169 191 2,035
55
In terms of the housing-related gross outputs, none of the evaluation reports we reviewed for the East of 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 tenant management organisation. Over 200 private dwellings were completed as a result of the Brighter Future for East Colchester scheme in Haven Gateway. A further 328 private dwellings were improved; three-quarters of this activity was through the Kirkley Regeneration Initiative in Suffolk. Roughly three-quarters of the 379 improved local authority dwellings were attributed to SRB schemes in the Norfolk sub-region. 93 housing association dwellings were completed through the Brighter Future for East Colchester scheme 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 from around 1,000 community safety initiatives. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sub-region with the most community safety initiatives (Hertfordshire with 658) was the sub-region with the most overall beneficiaries (38,481). It also reached more than half of the 19,037 over 60s benefiting from such schemes. However, more than a third of all people benefiting from community safety initiatives arose from 13 such initiatives in the Tilbury Port scheme in Thames Gateway. Furthermore, out of nearly 26,000 females benefiting from community safety initiatives, the Tilbury Port initiatives accounted for almost 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 youth crime prevention initiatives were facilitated by SRB funding, and these were attended by more than 16,000 people. The Luton Dunstable scheme was the chief contributor in terms of crime prevention initiatives. However, it should be noted that the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group evaluation states that a number of schemes have 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 waste management and recycling schemes (the waste management/recycling was mainly a result of the Tilbury 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 new sports facilities and nearly 114,000 people accessed 59 new cultural facilities, according to the evaluation evidence we reviewed. Interestingly, although half of the new cultural facilities were developed in Essex as a result of the Harlow Community Connections scheme, no one was reported to have access to these facilities. This appears to be an oversight in the evaluation; however, no further explanation was given in the evaluation report. This is not restricted to Essex, as similar issues are noted in Suffolk and Thames Gateway. Conversely, despite there being no record of the number of new facilities developed in the Regenerating Peterborough evaluation, a number of people were recorded as accessing new health, sports and cultural facilities. Once more the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group evaluation states that for Westfield Adult Education Project the total population in the area has been given instead of the number of people actually accessing (attending) the centre again, no adjusted figures are offered. The SRB schemes improved 24 health facilities, which were used by over 4,000 people. This activity was mainly in Hertfordshire, with 38% of improved facilities and 45% of beneficiaries. Nine sports facilities were improved to the benefit of around 36,000 beneficiaries, 90% of which were using the improved facilities in Borehamwood. Twenty-six cultural facilities were improved (around three-fifths of these in the Hertfordshire sub-region). However, the most significant output in terms of the number of users was observed in Thames Gateway, as a result of the seven cultural facilities improved as part of the Tilbury Port SRB scheme.
56
The gross outputs on the community and voluntary sector include support for 2,213 voluntary and 2,108 community organisations. More than 10,000 individuals were involved in voluntary work and nearly 200 employees were involved in volunteering schemes, of which more than 60% was through the Harlow Community Connections scheme in Essex. The final output category is childcare. The SRB programme contributed to the provision of 2,035 childcare 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 their forecast impact in respect of core RDA outputs. Table 5.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the Eastern Region Output category
1A (i) Number of jobs created 1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded 1C Number of people trained obtaining qualifications 2C (ii) Surviving 52 weeks 6B Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha) 8E Number of community enterprise start-ups
Regional performance
76% 166% 73% 36% 76% 150%
When comparing actual performance to the outputs forecast, the East of England presents a mixed picture. The region has exceeded targets in terms of the number of jobs safeguarded and the number of community enterprise start-ups, but missed targets against the other four core outputs relatively marginally in some cases (jobs created, qualifications obtained and land for development) and significantly 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 have significantly exceeded their targets. Targets for the number of jobs safeguarded were exceeded by more than double in Borehamwood and by more than four times in the case of Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership. Similarly, the overperformance in terms of community enterprises was a result of the Brighter Future for East Colchester scheme achieving more than seven times its target, while Working Together Suffolk Rural achieved almost 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 schemes potential or overly cautious target setting. Unfortunately, the majority of evaluation reports do not comment on the reasons 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 held some 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 Luton Dunstable scheme, which achieved 18%, 8% and 6% of its target respectively. These figures are based 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 of new businesses supported to last one year (target 32, actual 142). The Building Up, Reaching Out Watford 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 into Work 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 forecast impact, in respect of other economic outputs. Table 5.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the Eastern Region Output category
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal & 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)
63% 88% 118% 69% 30% 31% 30% 28% 98% 89% 140% 135% 2320% 28% 93% 37% 47% 73% 60% 24% 91% 164% 51%
Again, performance against target for the other economic outputs is a mixture of extreme overperformance, 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 Watford and South West Herts scheme. Here, the actual number of teachers in the target area on a placement into business (232) far exceeds its original target of ten, indicating that this scheme was much more popular 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 this area Tilbury Port, Kirkley Regeneration Initiative and a Brighter Future for East Colchester. The remaining 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 the fact that the scheme was approximately halfway through its seven-year period of operation. The Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group 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 forecast impact, in respect of other non-economic outputs. Table 5.14: Actual versus forecast non-economic outputs Output category
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 from 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
461% 57% n/a 141% 43% 185% 0% 67% 89% 57% 284% 60% 55% 11% 52% 72% 91% 39% 165% 36% 121% 93% 190% 13% 23% 22% 126% 129%
59
Output category
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
104% 99% 109% 134% 163% 138%
Again there is evidence of both over-performance and under-performance in terms of non-economic outputs. The extreme result for the number of private dwellings completed can be attributed to a significant over-performance in a Brighter Future for East Colchester. Furthermore, data issues related to output 5B (i) in the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey & Watford & South West Herts Partnership Group evaluation have already been discussed in relation to Table 5.11. This is largely 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 prevention initiatives, the significant underperformance of the Luton Dunstable scheme has pulled down the regional performance in this area. If the target and actual outputs for this scheme are removed, the regional performance rises to 157% of the target.

Our evidence base for assessing the impact of SRB in the six regions is incomplete. We have therefore considered whether we should gross up the results in order to estimate the impact of RDA spending on SRB across all the schemes funded in Rounds 3 to 6. We do not believe it is helpful to attempt to gross up the impacts based on the available evidence and have decided that the best option at this stage is to present results and conclusions based on the evidence we currently have. A more detailed explanation of this issue can be found in the Approach and Methodology section of this report (Section 4).
Once the reported gross outputs from the evaluations had been collated, the next step was to convert the recorded gross outputs into estimated net outputs to provide an assessment of the impact of RDAs spending on the SRB programme. As outlined earlier in this section, and as anticipated, there was very limited additionality information to inform this estimation process from the scheme-level evaluation evidence we were provided with. Given this, it was agreed with the wider RDA impact Steering Group that we would use a similar approach to that already used in the West Midlands (by AWM) and in the North East (by ONE) to estimate net outputs. Both these meta-evaluations used the additionality coefficients derived in the SRB national evaluation to generate estimates of regional net outputs. Details of the SRB national evaluation, and of the additionality coefficients we have used to estimate net outputs, can be found in the Approach and Methodology section of this report (Section 4).
60
Net outputs
Core RDA outputs Applying the additionality coefficients to EEDAs gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides a view of the net core RDA outputs for the Eastern Region SRB programme, as illustrated in Table 5.15.
61
Table 5.15: Net core RDA outputs in the Eastern Region Bedfordshire & Luton
81 9 296
Output category
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 startups
Essex
5 6 152
Haven Gateway
39 0 349
Hertfordshire
128 184 1,034
Norfolk
59 50 231
Peterborough
210 10 308
Suffolk
75 9 1,122
Thames Gateway
67 3 1,045
Total
663 270 4,536
62
72
10
12
41
75
Source: PwC analysis of EEDAs SRB evaluation evidence, based on SRB national evaluation
62
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 of the 270 jobs safeguarded were in the Hertfordshire area. Over 4,500 people trained through the SRB programme have obtained qualifications as a result. 72 new businesses supported through the SRB schemes survived for one year, of which the vast majority of these (86%) were achieved through the Brighter Future for East Colchester scheme. The SRB scheme facilitated the improvement/reclamation of ten hectares of land for development. 75 community enterprises have started up as a direct result of the SRB programme, more than half of which emerged from the Working Together Suffolk Rural scheme. Other economic outputs Table 5.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the Eastern Region.
63
Table 5.16: Net other economic outputs in the Eastern Region Output category
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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 (m ) 2B (ii) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m )
2 2

550 2,615
Essex
0 12
Haven Gateway
3,483 0
Hertfordshire
586 14,509
Norfolk
539 323
Peterborough
0 395
Suffolk
3,568 1,829
Thames Gateway
24 0
Total
8,749 19,684
140 877 53 32 48 24 46 7,636
24 347 3 5 1 0 15 40
130 208 42 25 42 7 0 3,870
2,567 3,408 161 41 23 10 226 11,125
21 669 1 0 14 9 0 2,097
19 15 0 0 0 0 0 617
84 5,296 86 52 46 18 30 3,365
195 1,470 151 139 24 24 14 3,817
3,181 12,291 495 295 199 91 331 32,567
8 82 0 28 0 231
4 133 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 12 151 293
286 1,416 142 33 0 90
5 57 0 13 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0
50 0 0 28 345 476
0 21 0 14 13,380 798
395 1,709 142 129 13,877 1,888
64
Output category
2C (i) New businesses supported 2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRBassisted 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)

29 6 553 4 2 0 6
Essex
9 0 132 0 0 0 0
Haven Gateway
48 86 312 0 0 0 0
Hertfordshire
105 9 292 2 1 0 1
Norfolk
0 0 95 2 4 1 0
Peterborough
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Suffolk
0 0 103 2 47 0 0
Thames Gateway
9 3 182 1 27 1 1
Total
201 104 1,668 10 80 2 8
65
Table 5.16 indicates the level of net other economic outputs. As can be seen from the table, there is significant sub-regional variation, similar to that discussed in relation to the other economic gross outputs 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 more evenly spread throughout the sub-regions. Other non-economic outputs Table 5.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the Eastern Region.
66
Table 5.17: Net other non-economic outputs in the Eastern Region Output category
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

0 18 0 16 0 0 0 5,364 1,153 2,474 626 52 65 34 9,720 2 0 12,652 2,905 41,492
Essex
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haven Gateway
85 0 0 0 42 0 0 270 32 73 0 0 60 10 769 0 0 4,453 4,619 5,591
Hertfordshire
0 2 0 33 0 1,598 0 20,010 5,375 3,030 2,119 43 336 18 662 2 0 4,731 32,465 11,486
Norfolk
0 17 0 141 0 0 0 4,723 564 1,065 1,809 5 7 7 112 0 0 3,726 441 915
Peterborough
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,738 50 188 0 0 12 10 38 0 0 641 49 908
Suffolk
0 116 0 0 0 11 0 1,784 0 0 129 11 34 22 0 1 2 0 0 0
Thames Gateway
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,902 2,153 5,349 46 17 19 4 0 1 74 0 0 34,550
Total
85 154 0 190 42 1,609 0 52,790 9,328 12,180 4,729 129 531 105 11,299 6 77 26,203 40,480 94,942
67
Output category
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

4 2 3 671 1,368 242 4 2 1 289 254 431 1 48
Essex
0 1 20 0 0 47 0 0 1 338 416 131 76 20
Haven Gateway
1 2 1 0 0 175 2 0 0 79 199 2,271 0 258
Hertfordshire
8 1 5 1,246 15,980 2,849 5 2 7 399 165 1,609 26 260
Norfolk
7 2 3 862 52 15 2 0 0 53 63 342 1 80
Peterborough
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 51 367 0 53
Suffolk
3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 108 171 237 17 290
Thames Gateway
0 61 6 0 0 14,903 0 0 3 46 73 410 4 10
Total
23 71 40 2,779 17,399 18,230 12 5 13 1,372 1,391 5,796 124 1,018
68
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, while Essex has led in terms of a number of community and voluntary outputs. Our review of EEDAs SRB evaluation evidence uncovered a range of additional outputs outside of the official list of sixty-three outputs. One output that was commonly reported across the region was the development of community capacity building initiatives. This output was reported in 12 of the 16 evaluation reports which we reviewed over 1,500 capacity building initiatives were reported (in gross terms) 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 to young entrepreneurs. There were also environmental outputs, such as cycle paths and energy efficiency initiatives and housing outputs, i.e. dwellings benefiting from measures intended to reduce maintenance or running costs. However, these were more sporadic and were only recorded for a small number of schemes.
Outcomes and impacts

The quantitative evidence of outcomes and impacts in the evaluation reports which we reviewed was very limited. Qualitative outcomes identified through these reports include:
an increase in self-confidence, self-esteem and skills base for the individuals who participated in SRB 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 of community safety.
A key stakeholder that we spoke to felt that the main outcome of the SRB programme in the East of England was that a large group of people in the most deprived communities had had an improvement in their economic situation. For some, this improvement meant the opportunity to move out of the community or area, i.e. people who were able to improve their skills and employability had moved to an area with better employment prospects. This migration creates issues for evaluation, in terms of the Index of Multiple Deprivation score. It also impacts the overall attitude of the community as it means that, if people who have been able to improve their situation leave the area there will be limited role models left within the area for those who remain. While the stakeholders that we consulted felt that the SRB programme in the East of England had had the biggest impact on reducing crime, improving the environment and community development, they generally felt that it had performed less well in areas such as health, where it was felt that the programme had achieved limited impact. Similarly, the effect on employment and business-led activity was said to have been limited, due to the ward-level focus of many SRB schemes. This limited impact is compounded by the fact that when individuals gained the skills to make themselves more employable, they often left the area in search of better jobs.
69
Partnership development and performance

The general impression from the evaluation reports that we reviewed and the stakeholders we consulted was that EEDAs working arrangements were more inclusive of other regional organisations than their predecessors in the Government Office. According to EEDA, this was a deliberate attempt to be more involved, right from the initial stages of a bid. The evidence from the evaluation reports received and from our consultations with stakeholders suggests that partnership working in the East was largely deemed to have been successful. At a strategic level, EEDA are considered to have adopted an inclusive approach, which is considered to have helped ensure that the SRB bids coming forward from organisations within the region would be effective, deliverable and in line with EEDAs objectives. Evidence from evaluations and consultations suggests that partnership working within the region is also considered to have been effective at a delivery level, as it is believed to have led to a focus on the core areas which the programme was aiming to address and the key projects which would deliver against these objectives. It was said to encourage community buy in. However, a number of complications with achieving effective partnership development were identified in the evaluation evidence. For example, the original partnership models for the Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey and Watford and South West Herts Partnership Group were found to be inefficient for the two distinct areas involved. This led to the development of a new, more successful model of two localised groups. Similarly, partnership working in the Keystone scheme was complicated 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 were experienced 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 and future activities and advise it on potential changes to the SRB programme. The overall management of the programme was the responsibility of the EEDA Board and its Executive. The SRB schemes were governed by locally-accountable partnerships. These partnerships were composed of representatives from the community, local businesses and the local authority(ies) and were generally considered to be inclusive. The SRB programme was considered to be successful within 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 the success of the partnerships which got through to the later Rounds that they top-sliced SRB funding to distribute on that basis, leaving less for other schemes. The thinking behind this was that there would be an SRB Round 7 and that by building the capacity of these partnerships, they would then be in a position to spend more money in Round 7. In effect, the result was the dilution of the programmes impact, as lots of partnerships got small amounts of money, requiring a lot of management but producing less of an impact.
Community engagement
Our evaluation evidence suggests that there was effective community engagement whilst the SRB programme 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
70
particular the Waltham Cross Economic Regeneration, Regenerating Peterborough and Suffolk Market Towns schemes, as well as some projects within the Vange New Skills scheme. A number of reasons for this were given, including a lack of representation by core partners at board meetings, mistrust of the some partner organisations, lack of community leadership, lack of willing volunteers and a lack of incentive for capacity-building activities. Local communities were sometimes discouraged from becoming involved because of their negative perception of formal structures. A particular issue faced by small villages was the difficultly in finding people willing to become active in their community.
Strategic impact
Strategic leadership and catalyst From EEDAs perspective the SRB programme has demonstrated strategic leadership by providing a wider 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 leadership approaches 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 the alignment with Objective 2 funding and the lessons learnt form the work around neighbourhood governance and developing neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood governance, planning and engagement is now an important policy direction within central governments Strong and Prosperous Communities agenda for local government and local communities. The idea of running programmes of work, rather than individual projects, is an approach which Luton Borough Council has adopted in subsequent 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 have been a key strategic impact generated through the Keystone SRB programme. The Objective 2 funding supported a number of capital builds, such as a state of the art conferencing and catering facility which included ERDF, SRB and later Investing in Communities funding, therefore helping to create cohesive packages of support. Table 5.18 shows the actual and leveraged funding for the seven schemes for which this information was available (no leverage information was available for any Round 5 schemes). The information available 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 levered an additional 3.58. Table 5.18: Leverage in the Eastern Region ( million)
SRB Round SRB spend Private sector funding Public sector funding Leverage ratio
8.5 2.1 n/a 1.5 12.1
30.1 0.1 n/a 0.9 31.1
5.7 5.4 n/a 1.3 12.4
1 : 4.21 1 : 2.63 n/a 1 : 1.43 1 : 3.58
71
Source: EEDA evaluation evidence
Synergy The community resource centre developed through the Cobholm and Lichfield SRB scheme was built on what was previously a derelict site, which had been an eyesore at the gateway to the town. The development of the resource centre greatly improved the area and was followed by a number of other capital builds in the surrounding area by national retail chains. Engagement The SRB programme had a significant impact on community engagement and partnership networks within the region. There was also evidence of voluntary sector engagement. However, EEDA experienced difficulties in engaging the private sector, except where there was private sector interest in a particular project, such as the regeneration projects undertaken by predominantly business-based partnerships around the technical colleges. The evaluation evidence suggests that the private sector sometimes viewed SRB as an overly bureaucratic public sector programme, which resulted in mixed private sector engagement. This lack of engagement is similar to past experience and indeed, EEDAs successor scheme to SRB (Investing in 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 in affecting mainstream delivery in the East of England. EEDA do not consider this to be a failure in the programme, but something that was always going to be difficult to achieve. There has been some notable subsequent investment from mainstream organisations. A project called TAVO (Thetford Area Voluntary Organisations), which aimed to provide training to the local voluntary sector, has received SRB and European funding and has now received National Lottery funding. Work on migrants was funded by SRB, Home Office, Connecting Communities (CLG), Citizens Advice Bureaux and Department of Work and Pensions. The Oxmoor neighbourhood management scheme now receives funding from Luminous, the registered social landlord. In the Cobholm and Lichfield ward, the remodelled play area is now maintained by Great Yarmouth Borough Council and the construction skills group built a disability garden at a local college, which is being maintained by the college. All of the key projects in the Suffolk Prosper scheme were mainstreamed.
Value for money

It would usually be standard practice to assess the value for money of the outputs generated by an evaluated 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 the diverse range of outputs in this programme and the difficulties in disaggregating economic and noneconomic 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.
72
Overall strengths and weaknesses

From the evidence we reviewed, the key strengths of the SRB programme in the East of England were the level of community engagement, efficient project management systems, effective partnership working, 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 and anecdotal 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 for EEDA, as the SRB programme in the East of England was based on relatively small areas. This was exacerbated by EEDAs small proportion of overall funding relative to the other regions, which limited the extent to which EEDA could target the funding and resulted in a focus on smaller areas of deprivation. The opportunities to impact on activities within those areas was necessarily limited by the physical or geographical characteristics of those wards, e.g. a heavily residential ward with no land free for business development could not undertake any business development activities. Subsequent regeneration programmes within EEDA looked for a broader model. For example, instead of taking a ward-level approach, the IiC programme comprised three strands of activity a regional IiC programme, a sub-regional IiC programme (using the sub-regions outlined in this section) and a rural programme.
Conclusions
This meta-evaluation of EEDAs SRB activity in Rounds 3 to 6 is based on the evaluation evidence received for 16 out of EEDAs 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 net adjustments 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 a further 270. 4,536 people trained through these schemes obtained qualifications. 72 businesses supported through the schemes survived 52 weeks. Ten hectares of land were improved or reclaimed for development. 75 community enterprises were established. On the whole, the scheme was believed by evaluators to have been effective in helping people in the most deprived communities to improve their outcomes. The SRB programme in the East of England was considered by stakeholders to be most successful in terms of reducing crime, improving the environment and promoting community development.
73
6 The impact of SRB in London
Introduction
This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the London region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this report and includes: background information on the London 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 based on an assessment of additionality; an assessment of outcomes and impacts; and a consideration of Strategic Added Value.
Overview of the London region

The administrative area of Greater London was created in 1965 and covers the City of London and 32 London boroughs. Its area also forms the London region of England and the London European Parliament constituency. The Greater London region has by far the highest GDP per capita in the United Kingdom. It covers 1.579 km (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 in the East of England region and by Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Kent in South East England. London has a thriving economy and is one of the most important business cities in the world, with a gross value added (GVA) per head in 2007 that was 53% above the national average. But it also faces significant challenges, with issues such as immigration, unemployment and the environment all regularly in the spotlight. Almost one third of Londoners are from non-white ethnic groups. The resident labour force of 3.8 million people is supplemented by commuters around a fifth of London's 4.6 million jobs are filled by people who live outside the capital. However, London has the highest unemployment rate in the UK as a whole, and the three highest unemployment rates at local authority level. 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 in low-income households. Londons key industry sectors include financial services, construction, the creative industries, energy, environmental technologies, healthcare, ICT, leisure and entertainment, life sciences, professional services and retail.
74
As outlined in Table 3.3, Index of Multiple Deprivation Data from 2004 indicates that 20.5% of the 21 8,120 most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs) in 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, East London contains 27% of the total sub-regions in London, but 38% of Londons sub-regions which are in the bottom 25% of the national IMD rankings. In contrast, 18% of Londons SOAs are in South London, 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 the sub-region in bottom IMD quartile nationally
249 638 70 183 523 1,663
% of SOAs in the sub-region as a whole

14% 27% 18% 19% 21% 100%

15% 38% 4% 11% 31% 100%
North East South West Central Total
Regional context
Table 6.2 provides an overview of the SRB programme in the region, outlining the number and proportion of schemes that took place in each SRB Round and providing a comparison with the national picture. Table 6.2: Number of SRB schemes in the London Region SRB Round Number of SRB schemes in the region (% of total schemes in the region)
49 (20.1%) 41 (16.8%) 48 (19.7%) 22 (9.0%) 38 (15.6%) 46 (18.9%) 244 (100%) 154 (63.1%)
Number of SRB schemes nationally (% of total schemes nationally)

201 (19.6%) 172 (16.7%) 182 (17.7%) 121 (11.8%) 163 (15.9%) 189 (18.4%) 1028 (100.0%) 655 (63.7%)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Overall Total Rounds 3-6 Total
Source: CLG
21
See 5 for more detail on Super Output Areas
75
Across the six Rounds of SRB, 244 schemes were funded in London, about 24% of the national total of 1,028 schemes. More specifically, for Rounds 3 to 6 with which this report is concerned 154 schemes were funded, which is also 24% of the national total. The allocation of schemes between Rounds generally mirrored the national picture and was consistent across most Rounds, apart from Round 4.
SRB expenditure
Table 6.3 provides an overview of budgeted SRB expenditure per Round in the region, outlining the amount and proportion of expenditure that took place in each SRB Round and again providing a comparison with the national picture. Table 6.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure SRB Round SRB Expenditure (m) % of regions total SRB expenditure
21% 16% 19% 5% 21% 19% 100% 63%

28% 22% 31% 23% 31% 24% 27% 28%
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Overall total Rounds 3-6 total
Source: CLG
316.2 252.3 287.3 73.1 319.8 300.0 1548.6 980.1
London received 1,549 million of SRB funding over the six Rounds, of which 980 million was spent during Rounds 3 to 6 of the programme. Round 5 was the largest Round (320 million) and Round 4 was the smallest Round (73 million). Overall, London received 27% of national SRB funding. Table 6.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of LDAs budgeted expenditure per SRB Round. Table 6.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round, per sub-region (m) Sub-region
North East South West Central Pan-London Total
Round 3
13.3 137.4 22.0 39.4 53.5 21.7 287.3
Round 4
10.6 28.8 0.0 0.00 26.1 7.5 73.1
Round 5
34.0 98.8 3.9 30.9 109.6 42.6 319.8
Round 6
9.5 132.6 6.2 38.5 81.3 32.0 300.0
Totals
67.4 397.5 32.1 108.8 270.5 103.8 980.1
% of Total
7% 41% 3% 11% 28% 11% 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 with the deprivation levels highlighted in Table 6.1, East London received the most funding across the four
76
Rounds (398 million), followed by Central London. South London received the least amount of funding (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 million and Round 4 was the smallest at only 73 million. The low funding levels for Round 4 were consistent with 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. Table 6.5: SRB actual expenditure between 2002-2007 Year
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total
Source: LDA
SRB expenditure (m)

189.1 132.2 82.6 72.4 31.4 507.8
LDAs total relevant expenditure for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is 1,106 million. This means that SRB accounts for 46% of LDAs expenditure in the overall RDA impact evaluation. The figures in Table 6.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that we have evaluated, as some of the spend in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 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 for SRB schemes. We are therefore heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of evaluation evidence we have received from the RDA. The LDA were helpful in sourcing reports, although as Table 6.6 shows, evidence was not available for all SRB schemes. The quality of SRB reports received was highly variable, with some reports providing a comprehensive review of scheme performance and others not even reviewing the finance and output performance for the scheme. Table 6.6 outlines the amount of usable evidence we received per SRB Round and indicates the coverage 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 expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources.
77
Table 6.6: 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 budgeted expenditure for that Round Amount of budgeted expenditure for that Round (m)
203.3 53.7 245.5 257.9 760.4
48 22 38 46 154
18 11 23 32 84
38% 50% 61% 70% 55%
71% 74% 77% 86% 78%
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 reports for 100 schemes, but for 16 of these schemes the evaluation reports did not contain the required information, i.e. outputs and financial information and were not included in the quantitative analysis of the London SRB programme. The remaining 84 reports received (or 55% of the total) contained the required financial and output information and covered 760 million, or 78% of the total SRB spend for the London programme. Table 6.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme, including evidence that we were ultimately not able to use. Table 6.7: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round and by size of scheme SRB Round Number of schemes under 1m
11 4 7 11 33

1 1 1 4 7

3 4 5 9 21

17 8 21 26 72
13 7 8 8 36
24 11 23 27 85
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 3 million. 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 3 million) we received reports for only 21 schemes. This might suggest that smaller schemes were more reluctant 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 Project Management 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, which meant we could not be wholly sure about the consistency of the PMS information. Further, the LDA
78
had provided evaluation report evidence for over 70% of their SRB spend, which was considered to be a sufficient level of coverage through evaluation evidence to provide information about the impact of SRB in the region. We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individual evaluations can tell us about expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 6.8 provides an overview of what we have found. Table 6.8: Prevalence of output/expenditure data in evaluation evidence received SRB Round Total number of evaluations received Evaluations with actual and budgeted expenditure included Evaluations with gross outputs included
18 11 21 34 84
Evaluations with net outputs included

Source: York Consulting
21 13 27 39 100
17 10 22 28 77
0 0 3 1 4
Of the 100 reports received by York Consulting, 77 contained financial information and 84 reports contained information on gross outputs. So as to include the information for those schemes for which output but financial data was not available, the assumption is made that schemes spent all of the CLG funding made available to them. Only four evaluation reports that we received Silwood SRB, Connecting Communities, Getting London Working and Delivering Manufacturing in Thames Gateway South made any attempt to assess additionality and estimate the net outputs of the schemes. Those schemes that did attempt to translate gross outputs into net outputs used either metrics based on conversations with SRB staff or derived from the national evaluation. It is hard to know exactly why so few evaluations attempted to assess net outputs. However, the most likely reason is that no explicit requirement to evaluate net impacts existed, so only a few SRB schemes are likely to have actually requested such information from evaluation consultants. There may also have been challenges in gathering, understanding and interpreting data, and in the limited budgets that were often available for evaluation. The limited amount of locally-derived information on additionality means that we will need to apply the additionality data generated by the National SRB Evaluation to LDAs gross SRB outputs, in order to estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, this approach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the best option available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4, which explains the meta-evaluations approach and methodology.
79
Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with key strategic stakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitative information about the nature and impact of SRB in the region in effect, to understand some of the nuances 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 understand more about LDAs overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to the delivery 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 helpful to 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 we have reviewed.
Gross outputs
We have collected gross output data from the evaluation evidence we have reviewed across the sixtythree official SRB output categories. A template was produced (and agreed with all the participating RDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidence we received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categories that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed. This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRB outputs 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 qualitative fields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; community engagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths and weaknesses. This recognition of schemes economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs is important in terms of assessing performance. We have separated the sixty-three gross outputs we have 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 SRB outputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets. We have classified these as core RDA outputs for the purposes of this meta-evaluation. Table 6.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the London Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted SRB expenditure of 760 million, or 78% of the budgeted 973 million SRB spend.
80
Table 6.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the London Region Output category
Central
2,592 2,423 10,460 179 12 83
East
6,465 7,532 22,396 314 52 93
North
2,440 1,220 7,887 0 8
South
2,167 1,094 6,357 99 13 5
West
3,797 32 7,956 256 1 -
PanLondon
11,494 2,727 6,131 2,750 18
Total
28,953 15,028 61,187 3,598 78 207
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 or 38% of these jobs were delivered by a single scheme the pan-London New Business Creation scheme otherwise known as Up and Running. Other significant schemes included Crystal Palace SRB, which delivered 1,885 jobs, and the Southall SRB scheme Unlocking Potential. The high levels of job creation generated by the Crystal Palace scheme mean the figures for the southern sub-region are 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 percent of 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 Time for Greenwich scheme, which secured 1,633 jobs. Notably, very few jobs were secured by SRB schemes in West London only 32 in total. The London SRB programme delivered training programmes for over 61,000 people which led to trainees 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 New Business Creation Scheme. It is worth noting that the evaluation report for this scheme casts some doubt on the monitoring systems put in place for this scheme and the scheme had to recruit consultants part way through the scheme to try and make sense of the monitoring and evaluation data systems. Seventy-eight hectares of land were improved or reclaimed for development. Nearly two-thirds of this took 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 Manufacturing Investment 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 of these were delivered by the Connecting Communities programme in central London. Over 85% of community enterprise start-ups were delivered in either East or Central London.
81
Other economic outputs 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 RDAs core outputs. Table 6.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the London Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted SRB expenditure of 760 million, or 78% of the budgeted 973 million SRB spend. Table 6.10: Gross other economic outputs in the London Region Output category
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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
Central
East
North
South
West
PanLondon
1,930
Total
46,537
299,764
2,487
21,564
95,968
468,251
123,813
124,439
162,279
52,080
17,272
3,323
483,206
3,540 56,172 1,409 784 137 45
9,095 133,872 5,188 2,721 933 401
836 38,394 744 118 39 9
2,664 39,010 696 459 66 51
5,670 2,387 18 1,019 4 -
3,106 32,352 3,705 1,985 19 -
24,910 302,187 11,760 7,086 1,198 506
5,442
1,725
1,375
298
814
9,654
198,910
194,954
75,047
68,845
12,834
17,073
567,663
1,925
1,861
1,039
234
192
97
5,348
82
Output category
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) Business/commercial 2 floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business / 2 commercial floorspace (m ) 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)
Central
East
North
South
West
PanLondon
Total
9,963
23,913
14,739
274
104
48,993
345
145
130
557
1,177
580
1,291
341
233
132
5,539
8,116
63,191
135,251
76,318
3,467
100
278,327
14,836
120,370
7,084
48,051
13,105
203,446
272 179
1,202 314
22 -
28 99
436 256
4,229 2,750
6,189 3,598
34,219
11,028
216
3,548
3,114
13,940
66,065
53 65 460 492
190 753 21 28
101 1 3 -
29 350 17
44 2 1
0 17 -
418 1,188 484 538
Source: York Consulting analysis, based on LDA evaluation evidence
The London SRB programme has delivered a wide range of other gross economic outputs. Some of the highlights include:
Over 460,000 person weeks of construction jobs created significant contributors to this target included the Time for Greenwich scheme, the Tomorrows City scheme in Stratford and the Unlocking Potential scheme in Southall. Nearly two-thirds of all construction jobs were created in East London SRB schemes; Over 300,000 training weeks delivered and over 11,000 people receiving training support getting a job. Significant contributors included Tomorrows City and the Newham A2E schemes, which delivered over 32,000 and 27,000 training weeks respectively and also trained over 1,200 and 900 people, respectively, who went on to get jobs; Over 8,000 businesses started up across London, the majority of which (68%) were delivered by the pan-London New Business Creation SRB scheme; Across London, 278,000m of business floorspace was improved and 203,000m of new business floorspace was created. Major contributors to business floorspace improvements included New Opportunities in Walthamstow in north London and the New Life for Paddington scheme in Central London. For new business floorspace, the Manufacturing in Thames Gateway in East
2 2
83
London and Crystal Palace SRB schemes in South London were the two single biggest 2 contributors, generating over 118,000 m between them. Other non-economic outputs This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being other noneconomic outputs. The range of outputs covered here is an illustration of the varying non-economic motives behind many SRB schemes. Table 6.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the London Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted 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 category PanLondon
Central
East
North
South
West
Total
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
560 665 3,180 46 109 404 5,458,298 17,213 62,516 4,957 140 871 514 17,324 36 58
197 621 6,958 939 525 0 339,511 25,016 119,610 5,674 457 837 1,136 49,623 36 147
1 24 91,433 16,380 53 7,163 271 207 88 3,567 15
9 170 10,972 1,452 4,364 454 212 48 141 4,067 25 -
252 73 843 21,115 10 452 1,550 88 106 3,052 171 14 11,862 40
1,009 1,359 0 10,982 1,009 643 574 5,921,329 60,071 186,995 19,798 1,251 2,050 1,999 89,495 97 260
84
Output category
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
Central
East
North
South
West
PanLondon
Total
27,870 59,579 241,430 38 19 110 22,807 7,660 100,076 97 84 285 9,583 4,107 20,091 236 3,767
188,874 187,505 626,486 98 21 29 43,575 41,491 86,946 261 167 68 3,577 2,755 19,478 1,549 4,304
13,642 8,080 8,380 1 1 12 200 135 2 8 285 725 1,639 3 12,658
55,806 193,858 17,052 8 5 13 3,096 18,835 86,563 36 34 8 784 322 1,066
3,951 907 4,258 63 3 2 731 229 29 2 104 4,404 849 -
1 374 292 1,374 70 24
290,143 449,929 897,606 208 49 167 69,678 68,852 273,814 425 287 369 14,707 12,605 44,497 1,858 21,276
523
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 prominent output performances:
Some SRB schemes sought to address issues of poor quality or a lack of housing. Just over 1,000 private dwellings were completed and 1,359 private dwellings were improved. The Wandsworth Partnership scheme in Central London completed 560 new private dwellings and the All Change at Camden Central scheme improved 359 dwellings.
85
Community safety initiatives were common across all sub-regions. Notably, the Central sub-region delivered over 5.5 million people benefiting from community safety initiatives. This number should perhaps be read with some caution the Cross River Partnership programme report suggested it delivered 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 subregions. In particular, 626,000 people in East London benefited from access to new cultural facilities, with the Leaside Communities in Business scheme delivering nearly 200,000 such outputs, for example. Elsewhere, in South London 193,858 people benefited from access to new sports 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 of which were in East and Central London), over 21,000 childcare places created and 1,858 employee volunteering schemes developed.

Table 6.12 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of core RDA outputs. Table 6.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the London Region Output category
Source: PwC/York analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from LDA
96% 125% 108% 77% 70% 82%
The SRB programme for London exceeded targets against two output categories in the RDA outputs section 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 Excellence for Manufacturing scheme, which had a target of 1,100 jobs safeguarded and delivered over 2,600 safeguarded jobs. No explanation for this over-performance is given in the schemes evaluation. Against the other four categories the programme failed to meet its output targets. In particular, the programme missed the target to improve or reclaim land for development only 70% of the target was achieved. This was due in large part to three schemes Take Another Look at Abbey Wood and Thamesmead; Crystal Palace SRB and Time for Greenwich failing to deliver 56 hectares of improved or reclaimed land. The large majority of other schemes exceeded or delivered close to their 2C (ii) targets. The regional performance figure of 77% is distorted by the poor performance of the London New Business Creation 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 only achieved 12. Table 6.13 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast
86
impact, in respect of other economic outputs. Table 6.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the London Region Output category
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial floorspace (m ) 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)
Source: PwC/York analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from LDA
2 2
79% 223% 84% 98% 93% 83% 88% 88% 108% 216% 177% 90% 160% 133% 102% 104% 110% 78% 178% 127% 139% 100% 47%
For the other economic targets delivered by SRB schemes, outputs were exceeded in thirteen categories and not met for ten output categories. Notably, for five categories, outputs were exceeded by 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 around 34,000 pupils benefiting from improved attainment and in reality the scheme achieved 146,000 pupils. It is conceivable that academic results in the boroughs schools have improved over the lifetime of the scheme (in keeping with national trends) and the SRB scheme has taken some of the credit for this improvement by quoting a figure of 146,000. Proving the SRB scheme delivered such a marked increase in student performance is nigh on impossible and also highly unlikely.
87
For those output categories where targets were missed, the performance against the majority of output targets fell within what might be considered reasonable bounds (within 20%). Ex-ante target setting for complicated programmes is not an exact science and there will often be output targets against which schemes under-deliver. However, the broad programme-level performance does mask significant variation at the level of the scheme. For example, the number of people trained getting a job the SRB programme achieved 93% of its outputs. However, within this the Leaside Communities in Business scheme missed its target by 45% and the Tomorrows City scheme exceeded its target by 13%. The most notable underachievement is against the roads improved category the London programme only delivered 47% of the expected target. However, it should be noted that road improvements are at the outer reaches of SRB schemes influence and are not a core measure against which many schemes seek to deliver. Table 6.14 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other non-economic outputs. Table 6.14: Actual versus forecast non-economic outputs Output category
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
33% 88% n/a 157% 42% 29% 213% 171% 118% 67% 174% 84% 128% 141% 179% 116% 515% 185% 160% 16% 142% 119%
88
Output category
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
Source: PwC/York analysis, based on SRB evaluation evidence received from LDA
185% 189% 127% 78% 205% 128% 132% 213% 150% 161% 164% 89%
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 of voluntary organisations supported stood at 213% of the target. Indeed, the last number highlights the problem of verifying SRB outputs. One scheme alone suggested it supported over 2,150 voluntary organisations as well as delivering outputs against most of the other SRB categories. Intuitively, this figure feels very high the administrative burden of recording the details of over 2,150 organisations would be taxing enough but there is no real recourse to verifying this information from final evaluation 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 Housing Association dwellings improved was poor only 29% of target. This number was driven largely by the failure of two schemes to deliver the expected levels of improved dwellings All change at Camden Central managed only 24% of its target and the Finsbury Park SRB scheme achieved 0% of its target.

89
Once the reported gross outputs from the evaluations had been collated, the next step was to convert the recorded gross outputs into estimated net outputs to provide an assessment of the impact of RDAs spending on the SRB programme. As outlined earlier in this section, and as anticipated, there was very limited additionality information to inform this estimation process from the scheme-level evaluation evidence we were provided with. Given this, it was agreed with the wider RDA impact Steering Group that we would use a similar approach to that already used in the West Midlands (by AWM) and in the North East (by ONE) to estimate net outputs. Both these meta-evaluations used the additionality coefficients derived in the SRB national evaluation to generate estimates of the regions net outputs. Details of the SRB national evaluation, and of the additionality coefficients we have used to estimate net 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 LDAs gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides a view 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 Output category PanLondon
4,712 1,173 3,433 1,210 14
Central
1,063 1,042 5,857 79 6 65
East
2,651 3,239 12,542 138 25 73
North
1,000 525 4,417 0 6
South
888 470 3,560 44 6 4
West
1,557 14 4,455 113 0 -
Total
11,871 6,462 34,265 1,583 38 161
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 outputs that would have been delivered anyway, without SRB funding. With these revisions the number of jobs created is reduced to 11,871, for example. However, because the same metric was applied equally across the sub-regions, the proportions of outputs delivered by the sub-regions do not change from gross to net. So, in the gross calculations the Northern sub-region provided 8% of the total gross jobs created. As Table 6.15 shows, this 8% figure remains the same for the net outputs achieved by the London SRB scheme. Other economic outputs Table 6.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the London Region.
90
Table 6.16: Net other economic outputs in the London Region Output category Central East North South West PanLondon Total
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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) Business/commercial 2 floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial 2 floorspace (m ) 2C (i) New businesses supported 2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 2D Number of businesses
19,546
125,901
1,045
9,057
40,307
811
196,665
65,621
65,952
86,008
27,602
9,154
1,761
256,099
2,195 20,222 705 376 78 25
5,639 48,194 2,594 1,306 532 225
518 13,822 372 57 22 5
1,652 14,044 348 220 38 29
3,515 859 9 489 2 -
1,926 11,647 1,853 953 11 -
15,444 108,787 5,880 3,401 683 283
3,319
1,052
839
182
497
5,889
93,487
91,628
35,272
32,357
6,032
8,024
266,801
1,155 4,882
1,117 11,717
623 7,222
140 134
115 0
58 51
3,209 24,007
210 244 22,749 6,676 120 82 14,714
88 542 48,690 54,167 529 144 4,742
79 143 27,474 3,188 10 93
0 98 1,248 21,623 12 46 1,526
0 55 36 5,897 192 118 1,339
340 2,326 1,861 1,265 5,994
718 3,409 100,198 91,551 2,723 1,655 28,408
91
Output category
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)
Central
East
North
South
West
PanLondon
Total
41 34 244 369
145 399 11 21
77 1 2 -
22 186 13
33 1 1
0 9 -
318 630 256 404
As per Table 6.15, applying the gross to net metrics to the various output categories reduces the levels of claimable outputs for all categories. However, again, because the same metrics are applied equally across all the sub-regions there is no change in the relative proportions of outputs the different sub-regions contribute to overall programme performance. Other non-economic outputs Table 6.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the London Region. Table 6.17: Net other non-economic outputs in the London Region Output category Central East North South West PanLondon Total
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
235 313 1,590
83 292 3,479
106 34 422
424 639 5,491
21 55
423 263
11 -
454 322
263 2,838,315 8,434 29,383 2,429
0 176,546 12,258 56,217 2,780
47,545 8,026 25 3,510
111 5,705 711 2,051 222
10,980 5 212 760
373 3,079,091 29,435 87,888 9,701
92
Output category
Central
East
North
South
West
PanLondon
Total
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
78 444 278 12,127 17
256 427 613 34,736 17
152 106 48 2,497 -
119 24 76 2,847 12
45 57 2,136 -
96 8 8,303 -
701 1,046 1,079 62,647 46
44 17,558 36,343 159,344 25 12 75 14,368 3,753 48,036 49 50 140 5,941 2,711 11,452
112 118,991 114,378 413,481 64 13 20 27,452 20,331 41,734 131 100 33 2,218 1,818 11,102
11 8,594 4,929 5,531 1 1 8 126 66 1 4 177 479 934 35,158 118,253 11,254 5 3 9 1,950 9,229 41,550 18 20 4 486 213 608
2,489 553 2,810 41 2 1 358 110 15 1 64 2,907 484
30 1 232 193 783
198 182,790 274,457 592,420 135 30 114 43,897 33,737 131,431 213 172 181 9,118 8,319 25,363
93
Output category
involved in voluntary work 8D Number of employee volunteering schemes 10A Number of childcare places provided
Central
East
North
South
West
PanLondon
Total
153 1,884
1,007 2,152
2 6,329
0 262
46 12
1,208 10,638
As per Tables 6.18 and 6.19, applying the gross to net metrics to the various output categories reduces the levels of claimable outputs for all categories. However, again, because the same metrics are applied equally across all the sub-regions there is no change in the relative proportions of outputs the 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 reasons and it is not possible to provide a definitive or even outline view of the impact of SRB spending across London. In many cases evaluation reports shied away from making definitive statements on impacts. In other cases, 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 not unreasonable, suffers from a number of methodological challenges. First, data is not always available at the level of geography at which SRB schemes are taking place. Second, there is a time lag (often years) 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 attributing quantitative causality (and not just correlation) to SRB spend is not advisable. There was often a misunderstanding about what constituted impacts and outcomes, and SRB evaluation reports were prone to refer to outputs as impacts and outcomes. Reports would often note in 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 the HM Treasury Green Book notes, sometimes outcomes cannot be directly measured and in which case 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 qualitative evidence of the wider impacts of the London SRB programme. The Young People Agents for Change 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 academic performance had generally improved over the lifetime of the scheme. This was combined with largely positive feedback from beneficiaries about the support they had received. In some cases, SRB schemes were thought to have delivered significant impacts for their areas. For example, the Destination Wembley report is bold enough to suggest the scheme was responsible for the new national stadium being located at Wembley, due to the transport/infrastructure improvements it delivered.
94

The evidence from evaluations and stakeholder consultations suggests that the success or failure of SRB 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 authorities were 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 final evaluation notes that partnership working was challenging; so challenging in fact that local residents are taking legal action against the partnership. The presence of multiple authorities on a partnership board was not always an impediment to progress, however. In the Finsbury Park SRB scheme, three local authorities were represented on the partnership. Despite the challenge this presented, the scheme was successful in securing a more consistent 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 three local 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 taken early on in the schemes lifespan. As a result, partnerships sometimes have an early burst of energy and enthusiasm while the money is being distributed, but fail to sustain this level of engagement during the later years of the scheme, when more prosaic tasks such as monitoring and evaluation become more important. A lack of private sector engagement was also highlighted in a number of reports as being an issue for partnerships very often the sometimes complex processes associated with spending public money can dissuade private sector engagement. Other challenges faced by partnerships included balancing the aims and objectives of different interest groups 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 were being shared among communities. The report on the Enterprise and Communities scheme suggests that the make up of the partnership meant it was not always possible for some partners to be frank and honest about the performance of the schemes and its projects. In many cases SRB funding and the partnerships developed were responsible for bringing together sometimes disparate partners to focus on a specific agenda. For example, the Keep London Working evaluation noted that the partnership was multi-disciplinary and bought together a wide range of stakeholders. The Young People Agents for Change scheme noted that the scheme had benefited from a strong partnership and although private sector engagement was weak at first, this was improved through the efforts of the partnership Chair. Those partnerships that endured post-SRB moved beyond being just a short-term tactical alliance to bid for funding towards being self-standing entities to provide a strategic lead for regeneration in their locales. Examples of successful partnerships include the Cross River Partnership, which delivered the London South Central Connections scheme, and the FinTrust partnership, which ran the Finsbury Park SRB scheme. Partners in the Cross River Partnership noted that the partnership had genuinely allowed 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 to have been reasonably good. Very often management teams faced working in a challenging context and having to deliver complex projects on budget and on time. These management teams were often put together at short notice and, in many cases, overcame significant early challenges to ensure schemes progressed and developed.
95
An important element of developing a successful portfolio of projects is ex-ante appraisal, but the views on appraisal were mixed. For some schemes, the appraisal process was felt to have been too drawn out and onerous. Other schemes used appraisal as a positive tool for fine-tuning project proposals 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 project appraisal boards based around the core themes for the scheme, e.g. sustainable communities. The evaluation report notes that the process was recognised as being useful to delivery agencies in helping them to understand the requirements for SRB funding. The Young People Agents for Change scheme was particularly proactive in its project appraisal process and actively sought to include 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 have adversely affected a schemes performance. For example, the Art of Regeneration scheme management was felt to have been weak on some fronts, which compromised the success of one its major projects The Albany Theatre. The Bridging the Gap schemes management was highlighted as being poor, with a lack of any protocols and systems meaning that no management information for the scheme existed. SRB schemes had a 5% cap of total funding to run the project management. This was felt by some to be too little and didnt 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 fund under SRB restrictions. A familiar refrain was the bureaucracy requirements for SRB funding. This was not helped by SRB having such a wide range of output targets to measure and record progress against. Indeed, the range of output measures has almost certainly been a hindrance, rather than a help, in trying to understand how SRB has performed. For example, the Young People Agents for Change scheme was widely regarded as having been well managed by board members, the only negative cited was that the monitoring and evaluation requirements of the scheme were unwieldy.
One of the central tenets of SRB schemes was the engagement and involvement of local communities in the direction and management of SRB projects. As one consultee noted, community engagement was 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 community representation on the board and the development of a community forum had strengthened community engagement in the scheme. Community engagement in the project development process was also recognised as being an important factor in developing effective SRB schemes. The Bridging the Gap scheme evaluation highlighted the fact that local community groups were involved in the design and planning of many projects. The Leaside Regeneration report makes the same point, but also notes that this process is time-consuming and requires a commitment from partners to ensure it is done properly. The Cityside Regeneration scheme placed a strong emphasis on community and business engagement and set up specific focus groups for interested parties. For example, The Brick Lane Restaurant Association served as a focal point for discussing project developments. In the same scheme, the work undertaken to 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.
96
Community engagement is a time consuming and sometimes costly process and not all schemes sought to engage communities from the outset. The failure to consult communities did in some cases lead to disaffection among local people and in the case of the Hackney Wick SRB scheme, the plans for 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 for an SRB scheme, sought to work at a strategic level. Other examples include the London New Business 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 its parts. 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 SRB funds. Table 6.18 highlights the levels of private and public sector funding that were generated by the London 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 of public sector money was leveraged. It should be noted that not all of this funding will have been additional indeed there is a strong argument to be made that much of the public sector funding would have been spent anyway, although perhaps not always within the same geographies or tackling the 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 sector funding
151.0 67.5 74.6 296.9 293.0
Public sector funding

185.7 97.0 166.5 163.4 449.2
Leverage ratio
117.9 43.1 121.9 164.9 282.9
1 : 2.86 1 : 3.82 1 : 1.98 1 : 2.79 1 : 2.62
Source: LDA evaluation evidence
A less tangible strategic impact of SRB was the bringing together of sometimes disparate partners to address local issues. The extent to which this is a genuinely additional benefit is moot in many cases it was the role and responsibility of agencies to tackle local problems using a partnership approach. However, SRB funding does seem to have played an important catalytic role in getting partners talking. In the case of The Centre of Excellence for Manufacturing there was a genuine sense that the multi-faceted nature of the problem meant that without the partnership approach funded by SRB, the problems faced by manufacturers could not have been addressed. The Cross River Partnership was able to develop a Transport Strategy in partnership with groups such as Transport for London and relevant local authorities. For some partnerships influencing wider local authority agendas was not always easy. The Woodberry
97
Hill and Stamford Down evaluation noted that it was challenging for a local level partnership to try and engage in the wider borough-wide strategies, despite efforts to do so.
As expected, the sustainability of projects varied from scheme to scheme across the London programme. In some schemes there was no mention of post-SRB sustainability, sometimes for reasons unknown. For example, in the case of the Safe in the City scheme very little mention was made of future sustainability. The scheme had sought to bring about a new partnership approach across eight clusters to deliver integrated homelessness services. While a laudable ambition, it is clear from the report that the cross-borough initiative, involving numerous different agencies, was always going to face a challenge in changing the entrenched working practices of the participating local authorities and agencies. Getting the partnership model to work was tough going and seemingly only limited 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 projects to secure their future, post-SRB. For example, the Building new links scheme evaluation report provides a future strategy, with the recommendation that an SRB officer should examine the likely sustainability of projects. Good examples of where projects had become self-sustaining before the end of SRB funding include the development of the Finspace development in Finsbury Park. As well as being home to the Finfuture partnership which developed out of the SRB programme, it provides meeting and office space which help to pay for its ongoing running costs. The Finspace centre is still running today. In other 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 as part of the Art of Regeneration scheme was fraught with difficulties and the evaluation report noted serious weaknesses with the project, not least the lack of capacity to effectively run a community arts venue. However, The Albany still exists today and still runs a community-based arts programme, as was originally envisaged. An unusual experiment tried during the Children and Neighbourhoods in London SRB programme was to turn the delivery partnership into a consultancy. Significant experience had been built up of working with children and young people during ten years of SRB funding and a consulting service was recognised 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 into mainstream service delivery, although as with other SRB programmes elsewhere the evidence of consistent mainstreaming is limited. As some reports have noted, SRB schemes were often run across local authority boundaries and trying to secure mainstream funding from multiple authorities presented a significant challenge. Examples of mainstreaming include the Cyber Centre funded by Silwood SRB, which secured mainstream funding from LearnDirect and Lewisham Council; the East Battersea Powerhouse Partnership, which was successful in mainstreaming its ICT training services at Battersea Library; and the Health Benefits scheme, which was successful in mainstreaming a number of projects, including the Place to Be project and the Nutrition in Schools project.
Value for money

98

A consistent strength of the SRB funding programme in London was the flexibility and long-term funding it provided for grass roots, local regeneration. SRB in London funded thousands of discrete individual projects within its 244 schemes, many of them tackling deprivation in some of Londons poorest areas. However, running so many projects may have increased the bureaucratic challenge and the administrative and management costs of running the programme. Also, importantly, funding so many discrete, local projects means that trying to understand the wider impact of SRB funding has been challenging. The SRB programme was certainly successful in drawing in sources of external funding to areas where public and private monies may not have been spent otherwise. This distributional impact achieved by SRB monies is perhaps one of the most significant benefits delivered by the funding stream. Some consideration could perhaps be given to the opportunity cost of spending money in this way (to assess if London could have got more for its money by spending it differently), but this is beyond the scope of this work. SRB monies also allowed for the development of local partnerships specifically tasked with delivering local-level regeneration projects. These partnerships were not always successful, but on the whole they provided a good institutional model for delivering local-level regeneration projects. A weakness of the programme was that sometimes these partnerships were an artificial construct that have not endured, post SRB. In such cases, the development and funding of partnerships perhaps did not always 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 the regeneration of their local area. However, sometimes community expectations as to what was achievable or realistic were unreasonable and this sometimes created tensions within partnerships. SRB partnerships often sought to develop physical resources such as community centres for their local areas. These developments were mixed in their success. For example, the Rich Mix project in Bethnal Green has faced a challenge in becoming a self-sustaining entity in its first full year of operation it lost over 800,000. However, despite this, the project achieved a surplus of 27,000 in the first three quarters of 2007/08.
Conclusions
The nature of SRB funding long term, flexible and partnership driven afforded the opportunity to tackle entrenched problems in some of Londons poorest areas. SRB evaluations were broadly positive about the performance of Londons SRB schemes. The London SRB programme largely hit the output targets set for it. However, within this broad picture there was significant variation in performance between schemes. The output regime for SRB, while comprehensive, was also complicated and there was potentially a significant cost associated with partnerships trying to measure and record performance against the numerous output categories. A tangible achievement of SRB was the leveraging of significant sums of private and public money. As was noted earlier, much of this money may not have been additional at the level of London or even at the local authority level. Certainly a case could be made that much of the public sector leverage funding would have been spent anyway. Debates about additionality aside, SRB served to provide a focus for investment in poor areas, often providing the pump prime funding to create the conditions to attract public and private investment. The legacy of SRB in London is hard to judge. There are certainly examples of where the programme delivered either projects or benefits that still endure. However, there remains a sense from the evaluation evidence that too often partnerships funded short-term initiatives dictated by SRBs funding strictures. It also appears that SRBs local focus, while a significant strength, was also to some extent
99
a weakness. This meant that some schemes struggled to achieve any strategic coherence outside of their locales this despite the objective that Round 6 schemes in particular should contribute to the Regional Economic Strategy (RES). However, the London programme did contain a number of panLondon programmes which attempted to deliver more strategic interventions across the city although the suggestion is that sustainability and mainstreaming of these interventions has been limited.
100
7 The impact of SRB in the North West
Introduction
This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the North West region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this report and includes:

background information on the North West 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 based on an assessment of additionality; an assessment of outcomes and impacts; and a consideration of Strategic Added Value.
Overview of the North West region

The North West consists of the two metropolitan areas of Greater Manchester and Merseyside and the three counties of Cheshire, Cumbria, and Lancashire. The region stretches 250km, from the Scottish border in the North to the Dee estuary and the Welsh border in the South, and is bounded on the west by the Irish Sea and on the east by the Pennine hills. Some 80% of the region is rural, agricultural or open woodland, yet four-fifths of people live in urban areas, with 60% living in the conurbations of Liverpool and Manchester. In 2006 the North West had a population of 6.9 million, a decrease of 1.3% since 1981. Population density was highest in Blackpool, with 4,088 people per square kilometre in 2006. Manchester and Liverpool also had high population densities, with 3,908 and 3,899 people per square kilometre respectively. Recent labour market data (not seasonally adjusted) covering the period January to December 2007 from the Annual Population Survey (previously the Labour Force Survey) indicates that the employment rate of working age people in the region (72.3%) is slightly below the UK average of 74.3%. The unemployment rate (5.8%) is higher than the UK average of 5.3%. Gross Value Added
101
(GVA) per head in the region in 2006 was 16,234, which is 87% of GVA per head for the UK as a whole. Overall GVA for the region in 2006 was approximately 111.3 billion and had grown by 4.5% since 2005. As outlined in Table 3.3, Index of Multiple Deprivation Data from 2004 indicates that 21.3% of the 22 8,120 most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs) in England are in the North West region. This is the highest proportion of any English region (by comparison, London is the next highest, accounting for 20.5% 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 in the sub-region in bottom IMD quartile nationally
131 73 747 283 492 1,726
% of SOAs in the subregion as a whole

8% 4% 43% 16% 29% 100%
Cheshire Cumbria Greater Manchester Lancashire Merseyside Total
14% 7% 37% 21% 20% 100%
The major conurbations of Greater Manchester and Merseyside account for a significant proportion of the regions population, as well as containing the vast majority of its deprived areas (72% of the regions total between them). Lancashires towns, such as Blackburn, Burnley and Blackpool, also contain high levels of deprivation. Cheshire and Cumbria, both more rural in character, account for just 12% of the most deprived SOAs between them. Cheshire in particular is a strong economic subregion in the North West, which will contribute to its lower levels of deprivation. Cumbria suffers from some major deprivation problems, but these tend to occur within a sparse and relatively small population.
Regional context
Table 7.2 provides an overview of the SRB programme in the region, outlining the number and proportion of schemes that took place in each SRB Round and providing a comparison with the national picture.
22
102
Table 7.2: Number of SRB schemes in the North West Region SRB Round Number of SRB schemes in the region (% of total schemes in the region)
35 (23%) 19 (13%) 33 (22%) 21 (14%) 23 (15%) 20 (13%) 151 (100%) 97 (64%)
Number of SRB schemes nationally (% of total schemes nationally)

201 (20%) 172 (17%) 182 (18%) 121 (12%) 163 (16%) 189 (18%) 1,028 (100%) 655 (64%)
Source: CLG
Two-thirds (64%) of the regions SRB schemes have taken place in Rounds 3 to 6, the same proportion as for the national programme. Broadly speaking, proportions between the Rounds have also mirrored the national trend, with the outlier being Round 6, which accounted for 13% of the North Wests total compared to the national level of 18%.
SRB expenditure
Table 7.3 provides an overview of budgeted SRB expenditure per Round in the region, outlining the amount and proportion of expenditure that took place in each SRB Round and again providing a comparison with the national picture. Table 7.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure SRB Round SRB expenditure (m) % of regions total SRB expenditure
20% 20% 13% 5% 20% 21% 100% 60%

4% 19% 15% 17% 21% 19% 19% 18%
Source: CLG
216.9 220.6 141.9 53.1 217.8 231.6 1081.9 644.4
The North West received more than 200 million for four of the six SRB rounds. Round 4 was the smallest (as it was nationally), accounting for 53 million, or 5% of the regions overall programme. Sixty per cent of the expenditure fell between Rounds 3 to 6, which closely mirrors the proportion of schemes contained in those rounds (64%, from Table 7.2).
103
In each round, the North West received a fairly common proportion of national SRB funds, ranging from 15% in Round 3 to 21% in Round 5. Overall, the North West received 19% of the national share of SRB funds, which compares quite favourably with its 21% share of deprivation, as measured by SOAs in Table 3.3. Table 7.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of NWDAs budgeted expenditure per SRB round. Table 7.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per round, per sub-region ( million) Sub-region
Cheshire Cumbria Greater Manchester Lancashire Merseyside Pan-regional Totals
Round 3
13.5 1.1 45.3 31.2 34.5 16.2 141.9
Round 4
1.1 3.1 17.3 4.5 27.2 53.1
Round 5
0.7 7.7 102.2 42.8 64.5 217.8
Round 6
10.6 36.3 115.0 69.7 231.6
Totals
15.3 22.5 201.0 193.5 195.9 16.2 644.4
Between them, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire accounted for 92% of SRB spend across Rounds 3 to 6, split approximately into equal thirds. The largest single Round for a sub-region was Round 6 for Lancashire, which received 115 million. In the same round, Cheshire received nothing. 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. Table 7.5: SRB actual expenditure between 2002-2007 Year
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Overall total
Source: NWDA
SRB expenditure (m)

46.2 97.6 66.8 67.9 43.2 321.8
NWDAs total relevant expenditure for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is 1,469.7 million. This means that SRB accounts for 22% of NWDAs expenditure in the overall RDA impact evaluation. The figures in Table 7.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that we have evaluated, as some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 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.
104
Evidence gathering
Evaluation evidence The meta-evaluation is a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations and other data sources for SRB schemes. We are therefore heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of evaluation evidence we have received from the RDA. Table 7.6 outlines the amount of usable evidence we received per SRB Round and indicates the coverage 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 expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources. Table 7.6: SRB evaluation evidence received by round
SRB Round Total number of SRB schemes 33 21 23 20 97 Number of schemes with usable evidence received 12 11 14 13 50 Percentage of schemes for that Round 36% 52% 61% 65% 52% Percentage of Expenditure for that Round 46% 64% 64% 70% 62% Amount of Expenditure for that Round (m) 65.6 33.9 138.8 161.2 399.5
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. Only Round 3 falls below 60% coverage, which perhaps reflects the time that has elapsed since many of the schemes ended, and the consequent reduced likelihood of being able to source scheme evaluations (coverage rises with every round). In terms of scheme numbers, we have coverage of more than 50% of schemes in three of the four rounds, and 52% overall. Again, we have least evaluation evidence for Round 3 schemes (36%). Table 7.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme. Table 7.7: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round and by size of scheme
SRB Round Number of schemes under 1m Number of schemes with evaluations received 1 2 1 0 4 Number of schemes 1m - 3m Number of schemes with evaluations received 1 3 3 0 7 Number of schemes above 3m Number of schemes with evaluations received 10 6 10 13 39
6 6 3 2 17
6 7 3 1 17
21 8 17 17 63
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
105
(62%) evaluations received. Coverage of smaller schemes declines with size, with only 4 evaluations available for the 17 schemes worth 1 million or less. This probably reflects a greater emphasis from funders and accountable bodies to have evaluations completed for more substantial schemes, and subsequently to retain the documentation. We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individual evaluations can tell us about RDAs expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 7.8 provides an overview of what we have found. Table 7.8: Prevalence of output/expenditure data in evaluation evidence received
SRB Round Total number of evaluations received 12 11 14 13 50 Evaluations with actual and forecast expenditure included 10 11 14 13 48 Evaluations with gross outputs included 10 8 12 12 42 Evaluations with net outputs included 0 1 1 0 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 one evaluation each that considered additionality and estimated net outputs. The sourcing of only two reports that provide relevant information on additionality means that we will need to apply the additionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to NWDAs gross SRB outputs, in order to estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, this approach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the best option available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4, which explains the meta-evaluations approach and methodology.
Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with key strategic stakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitative information about the nature and impact of SRB in the region in effect, to understand some of the nuances 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 to understand more about NWDAs overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to the delivery 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 helpful to 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 we have reviewed.
106
Gross outputs
We have collected gross output data from the evaluation evidence we have reviewed across the sixtythree official SRB output categories. A template was produced (and agreed with all the participating RDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidence we received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categories that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed. This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRB outputs 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 qualitative fields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; community engagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths and weaknesses. This recognition of schemes economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs is important in terms of assessing performance. We have separated the sixty-three gross outputs we have 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 SRB outputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets. We have classified these as core RDA outputs for the purposes of this meta-evaluation. Table 7.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by the SRB programme in the North West Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted SRB 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 11216 15184 Lancashire Merseyside 7702 5123 Regional Total
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
2761 1702
1090 910
6452 4674
1052 1423
30,271 29,016
3384
2095
34222
14192
11370
1983
67,246
233
142
550
835
266
2,026
54
726
11
38
32
861
12
10
338
67
52
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 similar number. No single scheme accounted for a majority of job created outputs, with nine creating over
107
1,000 jobs and three (Investing in the Future: Pathways to Progress, the Epicentre/Heart of the Port scheme 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, Greater Manchester (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 with the largest single achieved outputs of qualifications through training were the Welfare to Work Plus scheme, with over 4,000 individuals, and the Partington and Carrington Regeneration scheme, where over 5,500 individuals obtained qualifications through training. SRB also created over 2,000 businesses that survived for at least one year, and 479 community enterprise start-ups. Lancashire delivered the greatest number of businesses (41%), and Greater Manchester the most community enterprises (71%). In land reclamation, Greater Manchester delivered 84% of the regions 861 hectares of reclaimed development land, reflecting the large scale physical regeneration developments in the city. Schemes in 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 the output targets varied. For example, Cheshire delivered a greater percentage of all core output categories except land reclamation, when compared to its regional proportion of SRB spend (2%). Greater Manchester and Cumbria fared similarly well. Conversely, Lancashire and Merseyside only delivered a greater percentage of outputs in a single category (business creation and land reclamation respectively), relative to their proportions of regional spend (both had 30% each of the regional pot). Other economic outputs Of the remaining 57 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 RDAs core outputs. Table 7.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the North West Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted 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
Output category Cheshire Cumbria Greater Manchester Lancashire Merseyside Regional Total
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were
21325
18864
155864
43693
53196
292,942
17872
7056
217266
72091
72007
386,292
777
901
15435
4672
8023
29,808
9258
11858
144047
108185
81931
1817
357,096
9 17
1360 829
5354 4549
1348 826
2680 1029
0 0
10,751 7,250
108
Output category formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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) Business/commercial floorspace improved 2 (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial 2 floorspace (m ) 2C (i) New businesses supported 2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB-assisted activities
Cheshire
Cumbria
Greater Manchester
Lancashire
Merseyside
Regional
Total
13 0
201 131
1387 926
1131 451
841 344
0 0
3,573 1,852
36
191
7492
1660
360
9,739
33247
14738
265626
161473
147470
622,554
3021
230
2701
1756
1405
9,113
38
15345
18743
2604
36,730
12
142
170
34
358
520
312
2995
1497
1631
6,955
73542
23900
166299
47586
237642
548,969
6257
20924
324103
29582
234146
615,012
146
1575
2038
745
4,511
149
126
472
409
72
1,228
2811
894
37670
18643
9278
4200
73,496
109
Output category 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)
Cheshire
Cumbria
Greater Manchester 21059
Lancashire
Merseyside
Regional
Total
55
27
88
178
21,407
21
27
2955
26
186
260
3,475
0 1
1 0
224 410
1 1
9 30
0 0
236 443
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 Waterfront Scheme and the Epicentre and Heart of the Port Schemes; pupils assisted with their attainment (386,000) the North West Social and Economic Inclusion scheme accounted for nearly 100,000 of these, with the East Wythenshawe SRB3 scheme contributing over 65,000; number of training weeks (357,000) with the Welfare to Work Plus scheme the most significant contributor at just under 50,000, with a further notable contribution from the Pendle Kickstart for Jobs Scheme (over 31,000); young people benefiting from personal and social development (622,000) the Revitalising Inner Rochdale scheme contributing delivering over 70,000 of these, with the East Wythenshawe SRB3 scheme 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 23 categories, it delivered more than half of the regions total outputs, most notably land improved or reclaimed 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%). Cheshire delivered one-third of the employer-education collaborative projects. Other non-economic outputs This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being other noneconomic outputs. The range of outputs covered here is an illustration of the varying non-economic motives behind many SRB schemes. Table 7.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the North West Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted SRB expenditure of 400 million, or 62% of the budgeted 644 million SRB spend.
110
Table 7.11: Gross other non-economic outputs in the North West Region
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
260
194
1175
8895
10,524
155
194
1600
715
137
2,801
2643
53836
56,479
915
8622
9,537
218
25
432
1127
1,802
7634
152
7,799
213
213
33712 889 791 2399
32521 3486 2850 2588
796970 56810 56255 27776
61746 7906 19931 3265
261752 7071 8550 30872
0 0 0 0
1,186,701 76,162 88,377 66,900
460
2150
4402
414
260
360
8,046
106
128
2146
405
813
3,598
233
196
3273
339
1516
5,557
208
317
37058
21991
13251
72,825
2665
2,683
111
Output category
Cheshire
Cumbria
Greater Manchester
Lancashire
Merseyside
Regional
Total
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
662
133
151
86
1,037
39959 6300
26505 36749
141900 103541
94085 16524
73267 43859
0 0
375,716 206,973
73577
126233
1154837
57699
1437032
2,849,378
1 7 0
17 7 5
2961 3587 677
179 19 31
41 41 149
0 0 0
3,199 3,661 862
4004
2563
33158
15715
24246
79,686
1900
3518
12932
2067
18338
38,755
7789
42789
58184
63309
71753
243,824
3623
66
87
3,785
23
947
31
1,007
34
692
78
181
991
777
91
8142
2124
3368
40
14,542
469
348
5769
2936
4773
14,295
1837
520
23428
8955
8733
43,473
112
Output category
Cheshire
Cumbria
Greater Manchester
Lancashire
Merseyside
Regional
Total
8D Number of employee volunteering schemes 10A Number of childcare places provided
2886
110
35
31
3,064
944
195
148696
4222
1584
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, six
separate output categories), 89,000 dwellings were completed or improved; more than one million people benefited from community safety initiatives; and nearly 3.5 million people had access to new cultural, sports and health facilities. Schemes contributing significantly to these outputs achieved include:
Building Better Communities in Skelmersdale with over 53,000 local authority dwellings completed, 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 the AvenCentral SRB6 scheme; and the AvenCentral SRB6 scheme delivered access to new health facilities for 122,213 people, with the same scheme providing access to new cultural facilities for over 1 million individuals, a figure also achieved by the South Sefton SRB scheme.
The pattern of performance at sub-regional level continues, with Greater Manchester providing more than half of the outputs in 24 of the 34 non-economic categories, and at least 90% in ten of these.

Table 7.12 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of core RDA outputs. Table 7.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the North West Region Output category
Number of jobs created Number of jobs safeguarded Number of people trained obtaining qualifications New businesses supported surviving 52 weeks Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha) Number of community enterprise start-ups
Source: York Consulting analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from NWDA
100% 112% 142% 116% 97% 117%
The table shows that the North West SRB programme performed well against core RDA output targets. In five of the six categories performance exceeded target, but not excessively so. In the sixth
113
category, the target was virtually met. In the absence of background detail on the target-setting process, 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 by two specific schemes which significantly over-performed against very low original targets the South Sefton scheme achieved 10,432 hectares, against a reported target of 10 hectares; and the Oldham Route to Renaissance scheme achieved 263 hectares, against a reported target of 2 hectares. If these two results are removed, regional performance falls to 97%. Table 7.13 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other economic outputs. Table 7.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the North West Region Output category
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial floorspace (m ) 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)
Source: York Consulting analysis based on SRB evaluation evidence received from NWDA
2 2
56% 136% 128% 116% 129% 112% 147% 120% 243% 234% 95% 90% 78% 160% 100% 182% 154% 87% 242% 967% 112% 82% 80%
114
The picture of good performance continues through these other economic outputs, although there is greater variance. In nine categories, the schemes have exceeded their targets by no more than 150%. In a further seven categories, the performance is even higher, which suggests that targetsetting may either not have been so accurate, or that estimating performance against certain metrics was difficult. In the case of land for open space, the performance of 967% is due to two very high performing schemes the Oldham Route to Renaissance scheme achieved over 11,000 hectares, against a reported target of 2 hectares; the Wigan Regeneration Working Together scheme achieved 9,114 hectares, against a reported target of 61 hectares. Regional performance falls to 56% without these two results. In five categories, the regions schemes achieved between 80% and 99% of their targets. Only two fell below this level the number of construction jobs (56%) and the number of teachers on placement with business (78%). Table 7.14 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other non-economic outputs. Table 7.14: Actual versus forecast non-economic outputs Output category
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
37% 71% 167% 76% 34% 78% 13% 205% 147% 87% 268% 143% 252% 256% 321% 112% 264% 226% 165% 1140% 146% 375% 144% 117%
115
Output category
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
Source: York Consulting analysis, based on SRB evaluation evidence received from NWDA
94% 70% 152% 190% 165% 202% 243% 191% 126% 5124%
Performance against target has been poor in relation to housing development outputs. Six of the seven housing outputs underperformed, achieving between 13% and 78% of their targets. The consistency of this underperformance suggests that target-setting may not have been accurate in this sector, although the reasons for this are unclear. Outputs relating to security and crime prevention have proved easier to meet, with seven of the eight categories exceeding their targets by between 143% and 321%. Similarly, outputs relating to the improvement and use of health, cultural and sports facilities have also been strong performers. Once again, extreme over performance of more than 1,000% in two categories can be explained by significant delivery in a very small number of schemes.

Once the reported gross outputs from the evaluations had been collated, the next step was to convert the recorded gross outputs into estimated net outputs to provide an assessment of the impact of RDAs spending on the SRB programme. As outlined earlier in this section, and as anticipated, there was very limited additionality information to inform this estimation process from the scheme-level evaluation evidence we were provided with. Given this, it was agreed with the wider RDA impact Steering Group that we would use a similar approach to that already used in the West Midlands (by AWM) and in the North East (by ONE) to estimate net outputs. Both these meta-evaluations used the additionality coefficients derived in the SRB national evaluation to generate estimates of the regions net outputs.
116
Details of the SRB national evaluation, and of the additionality coefficients we have used to estimate net 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 NWDAs gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides a view of the net core RDA outputs for the SRB programme in the North West Region, as illustrated in Table 7.15. Table 7.15: Net core RDA outputs in the North West Region
Output category Cheshire Cumbria Greater Manchester 4598 6529 Lancashire Merseyside Regional Total
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
1132 732
447 391
2645 2010
3158 2203
431 612
12,411 12,477
1895
1173
19164
7948
6367
1110
37,658
103
62
242
367
117
891
26
356
19
16
422
264
52
41
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 over 37,000 people have obtained qualifications. Greater Manchester has provided the bulk of these opportunities. Nearly 900 businesses have been created and survived for at least one year, 68% of which were created in Lancashire and Greater Manchester. More than 400 hectares of land has been improved or reclaimed for development, particularly in Greater Manchester. Across all of the categories, the three sub-regions with the largest conurbations, and the greatest deprivation levels, have delivered the vast majority of outputs; at least 80% in all categories. Other economic outputs Table 7.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the North West Region.
117
Table 7.16: Net other economic outputs in the North West Region
Output category 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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) Business / commercial floorspace 2 improved (m ) Cheshire Cumbria Greater Manchester 65463 Lancashire Merseyside Regional Total
8957
7923
18351
22342
123,036
9472
3740
115151
38208
38164
204,735
482
559
9570
2897
4974
18,481
3333 5 8 7 0
4269 680 398 115 73
51857 2677 2184 791 519
38947 674 396 645 253
29495 1340 494 479 193
654 0 0 0 0
128,555 5,375 3,480 2,037 1,037
22
117
4570
1013
220
5,941
15626
6927
124844
75892
69311
292,600
1813
138
1621
1054
843
5,468
19
7519
9184
1276
17,998
87
104
21
218
218
131
1258
629
685
2,921
26475
8604
59868
17131
85551
197,629
118
Output category 2B (ii) New business/commercial 2 floorspace (m ) 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)
Cheshire
Cumbria
Greater Manchester 145846
Lancashire
Merseyside
Regional
Total
2816
9416
13312
105366
276,755
3 69
64 58
693 217
897 188
328 33
0 0
1,985 565
1209
384
16198
8016
3990
1806
31,603
42
20
16005
67
135
16,269
11 0 1
14 1 0
1566 119 308
14 1 1
99 5 23
138 0 0
1,842 125 332
After accounting for additionality, there are still some substantial numbers of outputs accruing to the regions SRB schemes, for example in terms of the amount of commercial/business floorspace created or improved. Other non-economic outputs Table 7.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the North West Region. Table 7.17: Net other non-economic outputs in the North West Region
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
109
81
494
3736
4,420
73
91
752
336
64
1,316
458
4311
4,769
98
11
194
507
811
119
Output category 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
Cheshire
Cumbria
Greater Manchester
Lancashire
Merseyside
Regional
Total
3817
76
3,900
138
138
17530 436 372 1176
16911 1708 1340 1268
414424 27837 26440 13610
32108 3874 9368 1600
136111 3465 4019 15127
0 0 0 0
617,085 37,319 41,537 32,781
258
1204
2465
232
146
202
4,506
54
65
1094
207
415
1,835
126
106
1767
183
819
3,001
146
222
25941
15394
9276
50,978
1253
1,261
503
101
115
65
788
25174 3843
16698 22417
89397 63160
59274 10080
46158 26754
0 0
236,701 126,254
48561
83314
762192
38081
948441
1,880,589
1 4 0
11 4 3
1925 2224 460
116 12 21
27 25 101
0 0 0
2,079 2,270 586
120
Output category 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
Cheshire
Cumbria
Greater Manchester
Lancashire
Merseyside
Regional
Total
2523
1615
20890
9900
15275
50,202
931
1724
6337
1013
8986
18,990
3739
20539
27928
30388
34441
117,036
1812
33
44
1,893
14
568
19
604
17
339
38
89
486
482
56
5048
1317
2088
25
9,016
310
230
3808
1938
3150
9,435
1047
296
13354
5104
4978
24,780
1876
72
23
20
1,992
472
98
74348
2111
792
77,821
The effect of moving from gross to net is perhaps most clearly visible in this table where particularly large numbers are concerned. For example, the number of people accessing new cultural facilities drops from 2.8 million to 1.2 million. Nevertheless, the table does demonstrate the significant range and extent of SRB non-economic outputs.
121

There is a significant challenge in understanding the totality of the regions SRB outcomes and impacts. First, evaluators have been very critical of the way in which schemes have developed baselines and indicators that allow an assessment of impact to be made. A total of 17 evaluation reports comment on the lack of a baseline, or the unsuitability of indicators relative to a schemes activities and outputs. Second, where suitable, timely and spatially accurate information is available and trends are possible to establish, attribution to the performance of an SRB scheme or its constituent projects is very hard to determine, and most evaluations have not tried. Third, stakeholder consultations have tended to focus on process impacts of SRB (such as partnership and community engagement) 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-economic datasets to estimate impact. By far the most common are those for school-age education performance (Key Stages, GCSE); worklessness (target group unemployment, claimant counts); and crime. Other less frequently used indicators include business start-up rates, wage rates and housing tenure 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-reliance on these datasets alone is not likely to provide an accurate picture of SRBs overall impact, relative to its activities and outputs. Consider, for example, the number of categories and outputs relating to housing improvement, land reclamation, business creation and community facilities. Even based on the limited evidence available from the evaluations, the regional picture of impact is by no 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 any consistent messages in terms of regional movement in narrowing the gap between the most and least deprived parts of the North West.

The messages from the evaluations on partnership are much clearer. A majority of schemes appear to 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 a partnership rolled over from one SRB Round to another. However, with time, initial teething problems and misunderstandings seem to have been generally ironed out. The focus of partnership activity varied from scheme to scheme. However, larger schemes tended to be characterised by thematic-level partnership activity, or partnerships created around particularly large individual projects. At this operational/delivery level, partnership working helped to deliver better activities by, for example, ensuring consistency of approach across service delivery bodies, or effective engagement with service users or project beneficiaries. At a more strategic level, partnership activity 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 of other partnership structures, such as those created to deliver Neighbourhood Renewal Fund programmes and Local Strategic Partnerships. Partnership is not without its criticisms; most notably, there is a common view that the right partners were either not always invited to participate, or they demonstrated highly variable commitment and engagement. In particular, a majority of evaluations expressed a view suggesting that the private sector was not sufficiently part of SRBs partnership structure. Evaluations also suggest that partnership enthusiasm tended to wane towards the end of a schemes life.
122

There was limited comment in the evaluations on governance mechanisms, aside from reviewing the representativeness of the relevant SRB boards. Where Board performance was considered, the common view was that it tended to focus on operational rather than strategic matters, although the extent of this varied between schemes. Programme management was generally assessed as having been good. A large number of evaluations reported the challenges of ensuring the successful management of SRB, including capacity constraints, high staff turnover or retention problems and a generally steep learning curve. Management and core administration costs across the regions SRB programme were typically around 5% of total SRB expenditure. Project application and appraisal systems were less commonly evaluated. Where this has taken place, the general assessment is that they were sound, although smaller organisations and projects appear to have struggled on occasion with the application forms and appraisal bureaucracy (although these systems appear to vary from scheme to scheme). More generally, there is some rather broadbrush criticism of the levels of bureaucracy and administration associated with SRB, from the project deliverers perspective, although this is not more clearly specified.
There are some stark contrasts in evaluators assessments of community engagement in the North West SRB programme, perhaps reflecting the wide range of approaches that individual schemes took in this area. Some stress the strength of community engagement at the beginning of a scheme, for example in the setting of priorities and identification of project ideas. Others view the success as having come from community representatives on the SRB Board, or through ongoing consultation with community forums or similar communication structures. But rarely is all of this encompassed in a single scheme. While some schemes managed successfully to engage particularly hard-to-reach groups, such as BME 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, for example the complaint that engagement has not delivered any community control over a schemes direction or activities. Where it was offered, communities appear to have particularly welcomed the Community Chest type of project, which not only provided funds for them to control directly, but also helped to engage them with 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 city centre regeneration. While not necessarily the most significant player, or the largest funder, SRB was viewed as being a crucial element in driving the regeneration agenda in its locality, creating an agenda for change, and paving the way for downstream investment. In terms of engagement, the community-level effects of SRB engagement have already been commented 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 been common.
123
Leverage Table 7.18 shows leverage ratios for the regional SRB programme by Round, for those evaluations where 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)
46.0 14.0 145.5 105.5 311.0
Private sector funding

45.0 14.0 145.4 103.7 308.1
Public sector funding

225.7 12.6 124.4 138.0 500.7
Leverage ratio
1 : 5.90 1 : 1.90 1 : 1.90 1 : 2.30 1 : 2.60
Source: NWDA evaluation evidence
Judgements about legacy and sustainability are difficult, as evaluations tended to happen before a schemes end, and often at a time when the schemes 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 the schemes that were more confident about life after SRB, which had devoted thinking and planning to legacy and sustainability from the mid-term of the schemes existence. Due to the timings, therefore, a lot of comment in the evaluations about sustainability is rather vague and delivered in general terms. However, at the strategic level, it is clear that some SRB boards and partnerships continued to operate in other guises, such as developing into a Local Strategic Partnership. At the project level, schemes were more confident about the longer-term impact and sustainability 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) that they could be sustained through other regeneration streams, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative or Housing Market Renewal. However, specific evidence of 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 health projects, welfare/job support activities and posts such as town wardens.
Value for money

124

The evaluations note a range of strengths from the regions SRB schemes. The more common responses tend to identify process issues, such as the extent of community involvement and SRBs bottom-up approach, strong project selection, effective management and good output/leverage performance. In addition, schemes seem to have been particularly good at engaging and working with young people. Weaknesses have already been identified to a great extent. These run through the programme lifecycle, from the inadequacies of many scheme baselines, through to the lack of consideration of ongoing sustainability. The lack of engagement of the private sector is a common weakness identified in schemes. In a few cases, SRB is criticised for not having delivered a sufficiently coherent programme 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 been either partially or largely successful. This view stems from the meeting, and in some cases, substantial exceeding of RDA core, other economic and other non-economic outputs. Only one core RDA output slightly underperformed against forecasts, with performance against other economic outputs exceeding expectations in 16 out of 23 output areas. When leverage is factored in, there are six schemes which have invested over 20 million each within the region. The largest two schemes, Count Me In (St. Helens) and Integrating and Sustaining Communities (Salford), are worth just under a quarter of a billion pounds. A substantial number of outputs have been delivered by a relatively small number of large schemes. Leverage was at its highest 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 are considered to have been effective, although the levels of community and private sector engagement do vary considerably across schemes. Whilst the views regarding the sustainability of SRB schemes are more mixed, SRB investment appears to have been a catalyst for a wide range of post-SRB activity, including sub-regional partnership working in some cases. Although largely positive, these conclusions need to be weighed against the fact that we were only able to source 50 evaluations out of an official total of 97 SRB schemes in the region.
125
8 The impact of SRB in the South East
Introduction
This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the South East region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this report and includes: background information on the South East 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 based on an assessment of additionality; an assessment of outcomes and impacts; and a consideration of Strategic Added Value.
Background to the South East region

The South East region encompasses 19 county and unitary authorities and 55 districts, stretching in an arc around London from Thanet in the south-east to the New Forest in the south-west and to Aylesbury 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 West Sussex. Whilst it is without a single dominant urban centre, the region is home to two urban areas with populations of around 250,000 (Medway and Brighton and Hove) and five urban areas with populations of greater than 100,000. The South East is home to over eight million people (in some three million households) and the population is expected to increase by more than 10% between 2005 and 2021. With a total output of around 177 billion in 2006, the South East is the second largest regional economy within the UK. The South Easts share of the UKs output has increased from 13.2% in 1989 23 to 15.7% in 2006. Between 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 economy was 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
126
rates and the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Real growth in the region slowed in both 2004 and 2005, with real output (GVA) expanding by 2.8% in 2004 (below the national average) and 24 2.1% in 2005 (marginally above the national average) . 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 in unemployment rates the latter reaching 4.7% by late 2005. High levels of GVA per head (approximately 19,000) mask significant sub-regional disparities. In particular, parts of the coastal fringe of the region perform significantly below regional and national averages. As outlined in Table 3.3, Index of Multiple Deprivation Data from 2004 indicates that 5.0% of the 8,120 25 most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs) in 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 of relative 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 IMD quartile nationally 113 118 40 23 108 402 % of SOAs in the subregion as a whole 22% 20% 16% 23% 19% 100% % of regional total in lowest IMD quartile nationally 28% 29% 10% 6% 27% 100%
Hampshire & Isle of Wight Kent and Medway Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire (MKOB) Surrey and Berkshire Sussex Total
Table 8.1 illustrates that deprivation within the South East region is more concentrated and prevalent in the Kent and Medway, Hampshire & Isle of Wight and Sussex sub-regions, which account for 61% of the regions SOAs in total but 84% of the regions SOAs in the bottom IMD quartile nationally. Just 16% of the South East regions 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 and proportion of schemes that took place in each SRB round and providing a comparison with the national picture.
24 25
RES Annual Monitoring Report October 1, 2007: see http://www.seeda.co.uk/res/ See 5 for more detail on Super Output Areas
127
Table 8.2: Number of SRB schemes in the South East Region

SRB Round Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Overall total Rounds 3-6
Source: CLG
Number of SRB schemes in the region (% of regional total) 19 (16%) 24 (20%) 19 (16%) 14 (12%) 24 (20%) 21 (17%) 121 (100%) 78 (64%)
Number of SRB schemes nationally (% of total schemes nationally) 201 (20%) 172 (17%) 182 (18%) 121 (12%) 163 (16%) 189 (18%) 1,028 (100%) 655 (64%)
Across the six Rounds of SRB 121 schemes were funded in the South East region, of which 78 took place in Rounds 3 to 6. The allocation of schemes between Rounds generally mirrored the national picture and was consistent across most Rounds, with Rounds 2 and 5 seeing the highest number of schemes. The reduced number of schemes in Round 4 is consistent with the national picture.
SRB expenditure
Table 8.3 provides an overview of budgeted SRB expenditure per Round in the region, outlining the amount and proportion of expenditure that took place in each SRB Round and again providing a comparison with the national picture. Table 8.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure
Source: CLG
SRB expenditure (m) 31.8 78.6 108.0 23.0 70.4 70.0 381.8 271.4
% of regions total SRB expenditure 8.3% 20.6% 28.3% 6.0% 18.4% 18.3% 100.0% 71.1%
% of national SRB Round expenditure 2.9% 6.9% 11.6% 7.2% 6.8% 5.7% 6.6% 7.7%
The South East region received 381.8 million of SRB funding over the six Rounds, of which 271.4 million was spent during Rounds 3 to 6 of the programme. Over the six Rounds, SRB spending in the South East averaged 64 million per Round, although there were significant fluctuations from a low of 23 million in Round 4 to a high of 108 million in Round 3. Overall, SEEDA received 6.6% of total SRB funding.
128
The proportion of national expenditure received by the South East in Rounds 2, 4, 5 and 6 was roughly in line with the average proportion the region received overall. Rounds 1 and 3 stand out as being untypical of the overall picture in the South East in Round 3 the South East region received 11.6% 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 SEEDAs budgeted expenditure per SRB round. Table 8.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per round, per sub-region ( million)
Sub-region Hampshire & Isle of Wight Kent and Medway Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire (MKOB) Surrey and Berkshire Sussex Region-wide Totals Round 3 21.2 19.1 5.7 Round 4 3.9 10.3 1.6 Round 5 35.2 21.8 5.0 Round 6 25.8 24.3 1.8 Totals 86.2 75.6 14.1
10.6 51.4 0.0 108.0
3.4 3.8 0.0 23.0
3.2 4.8 0.3 70.4
0.1 17.1 0.8 70.0
17.3 77.2 1.1 271.4
Source: PwC analysis of CLG data
The South East region received over 270 million between Rounds 3 and 6. Expenditure was dominated 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 Easts SRB spend was in the Surrey and Berkshire or MKOB sub-regions. These expenditure figures correspond fairly closely to the proportion of SOAs these sub-regions have in the lowest IMD quartile nationally, as outlined in Table 8.1. 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 and Surrey & Berkshire were notable exceptions to this, receiving 67% and 61% of their total SRB expenditure in Round 3 respectively. Allocating expenditure between SEEDA sub-regions has been difficult at times. We received several evaluations that cut across more than one of SEEDAs sub-regions, and we have had to make a judgement about which sub-region we allocated that schemes expenditure (and outputs) to. We received evaluation evidence for three schemes (Building For The Future In The Thames Valley, Early Years Intervention, Oxford and Slough and Thames Valley Social Enterprise) that cut across the MKOB and Surrey & Berkshire sub-regions. All the schemes have been allocated to the MKOB subregion, as that was the sub-region that the accountable body belonged to. Although the schemes were small, with a combined expenditure of 2.4 million, it is worth noting that this allocation of schemes to the MKOB sub-region means we are slightly overstating the expenditure in that sub-region, and therefore slightly understating expenditure in the Surrey & Berkshire sub-region. This will also be true of outputs. There were three small region-wide schemes Network for the Regeneration of Communities in South East 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 a combined 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
129
relevant expenditure period in the overall RDA impact evaluation. Table 8.5: SRB actual expenditure between 2002-2007
Year 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Overall total
Source: SEEDA
SRB expenditure (m) 37.4 41.1 23.1 20.3 6.9 128.8
SEEDAs relevant expenditure total for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is 577 million, meaning that SRB accounts for 22.3% of SEEDAs expenditure in the overall RDA impact evaluation. It is important to remember that the figures in Table 8.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that we have evaluated, as some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 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 The meta-evaluation is a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations and other data sources for SRB schemes. We are therefore heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of evaluation evidence we have received from the RDA. We received evaluation evidence for 49 out of the 78 Round 3 to 6 SRB schemes that took place in the South East region. Of these, 45 contained useful evidence some form of evaluation report with final (or assumed final) output and expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources. Appendix B contains a list of all the schemes where evaluation reports were reviewed. SEEDA made strenuous efforts to source as many reports as they could. They contacted a range of organisations to try to locate reports from their own area teams through to partner agencies, local authorities 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 evaluations combined outputs across more than one scheme, which made assessing the performance of some individual schemes difficult. Other evaluations provided output information for only a sample of projects 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 contained outputs up to a particular stage in the scheme. Where those reports provided output information to a particular point in the scheme, rather than the end of the scheme, we decided to treat those outputs as final outputs, rather than project the results forward. To extrapolate would have assumed that past performance would be exactly mirrored by future performance, which is rarely, if ever, the case. We also decided to disregard anticipated output figures, as these can often over-estimate the amount that will be achieved in the remainder of a scheme. The implication of this is that our analysis may
130
understate the actual outputs achieved by some schemes. Table 8.6 outlines the amount of usable evidence we received per SRB Round and indicates the coverage 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 expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources. Table 8.6: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round
SRB Round Total number of SRB schemes 19 14 24 21 78 Number of schemes with usable evidence received 9 5 17 14 45 Percentage of schemes for that Round 47% 36% 71% 67% 58% Percentage of budgeted expenditure for that Round 51% 45% 83% 98% 71% Amount of Expenditure for that Round 55.7 10.5 58.8 68.5 193.5
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 rose significantly for later Rounds, from 45% in Round 4 to 98% in Round 6. This significantly higher coverage for Round 6 may reflect the increased likelihood of tracing the most recently-undertaken evaluations. SEEDA managed to locate three large evaluations (Education Achievement Programme - Portsmouth and South East Hampshire; Regenerating the Heart of Portsmouth; and Connecting Paulsgrove and Wymering, Portsmouth) right at the very end of this meta-evaluation process, some considerable time after the deadline for receiving evidence had passed. We have included that evidence in this report where it was possible to do so, in the very limited time we had available to incorporate it. Table 8.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme, including evidence that we were ultimately not able to use. Table 8.7: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round and by size of scheme
SRB Round Number of schemes under 1m 2 4 4 9 19 Number of schemes with evaluations received 0 2 1 2 5 Number of schemes 1m - 3m 7 9 16 5 37 Number of schemes with evaluations received 3 5 13 5 26 Number of schemes above 3m 10 1 4 7 22 Number of schemes with evaluations received 7 1 3 7 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). The best proportion of evaluations received was in the highest expenditure category (above 3 million).
131
The fact that both the number and the percentage of evaluations received was higher for larger schemes 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 evaluation budget for the schemes under 1 million, or possibly an inclination to not evaluate smaller schemes. We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individual evaluations can tell us about RDAs expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 8.8 provides an overview of what we have found. Table 8.8: Prevalence of output/expenditure data in evaluation evidence received

Source: PwC
As shown in Table 8.8, approximately two-thirds of the evaluations received contained forecast and actual expenditure. About 90% contained some form of gross output information, which has formed the backbone of the meta-evaluation. However, only three of the evaluations we reviewed contained an assessment of net outputs. All were limited in the output categories covered and all had used national methodologies to calculate net outputs two (the Southampton Community Futures and Thanet Horizons schemes) had used the SRB national evaluation methodology and one (the Hastings and 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 the additionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to SEEDAs gross SRB outputs, in order to estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, this approach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the best option available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4, which explains the meta-evaluations approach and methodology.
Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with six key strategic stakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitative information about the nature and impact of SRB in the region in effect, to understand some of the nuances that may not be apparent from reading evaluation reports. We spoke to a mixture of people, both internal to SEEDA and amongst external partners, to try to understand more about SEEDAs overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to the delivery 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 most helpful 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 augmenting the evaluation evidence we have reviewed.
132
Gross outputs
We have collected gross output data from the evaluation evidence we have reviewed across the sixtythree official SRB output categories. A template was produced (and agreed with all the participating RDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidence we received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categories that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed. This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRB outputs 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 qualitative fields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; community engagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths and weaknesses. This recognition of schemes economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs is important in terms of assessing performance. We have separated the sixty-three gross outputs we have 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 SRB outputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets. We have classified these as core RDA outputs for the purposes of this meta-evaluation. Table 8.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in 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 8.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the South East Region
Output category 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 Hampshire & Isle of Wight 549 198 4834 38 1 7 Kent and Medway 704 488 8645 37 8 28 MKOB 88 72 3253 24 0 23 Surrey and Berkshire 94 0 1371 0 0 0 Sussex 860 602 4125 56 165 10 Total 2,295 1,360 22,228 155 174 68
Source: PwC analysis, based on SEEDA evaluation evidence
The evaluation evidence received indicates that 2,295 gross jobs were created, the majority of which were in the Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Sussex and Kent & Medway sub-regions. More than 1,300 jobs were 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 the sub-regions, although Kent & Medway accounted for the highest sub-regional total. One hundred and
133
seventy-five hectares of land was improved, almost all of which was in Sussex as a result of the Turning 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 the other 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 our allocating 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. Other economic outputs Of the remaining 57 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 RDAs core outputs. Table 8.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in 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 8.10: Gross other economic outputs in the South East Region
Output category 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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 Hampshire & Isle of Wight 22831 Kent and Medway 10295 MKOB Surrey & Berkshire 0 Sussex Total
40
11140
44,306
44456
89563
6750
5888
34499
181,156
2945 29994 296 172 63 28
1758 43025 596 448 142 71
314 7316 91 51 32 2
1096 31734 135 87 115 0
697 21815 262 95 162 97
6,810 133,884 1,380 853 514 198
605
198
30
101
316
1,250
131768
106117
19851
26016
67834
351,586
359 299
826 16535
127 408
40 189
2632 34672
3,984 52,103
134
Output category collaborative projects 1L (i) Number of teachers in target area on placement into business 2A Number of new business start-ups 2B (i) Business/commercial 2 floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business / 2 commercial floorspace (m ) 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)
Hampshire & Isle of Wight
Kent and Medway
MKOB
Surrey & Berkshire
Sussex
Total
59 322 38424 8306 153 38
401 154 15839 3381 120 16
1 78 351 1040 73 0
0 0 0 0 12 0
419 149 27508 21008 123 34
880 703 82,122 33,735 481 88
503 61 181 0 8
1519 90 73 1 2
932 3 10 0 1
287 9 0 0 0
1760 1 436 3 17
5,001 164 700 4 28
The SEEDA SRB programme delivered a range of other gross economic outputs. Over 44,000 person weeks of construction jobs were created, with half of these being generated in Hampshire & Isle of Wight, 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 of these were as a result of the Southampton Community Futures scheme. Almost 4,000 employers participated in collaborative projects with educational institutions to improve student performance and 52,103 students entered into collaborative projects at the end of the SRB programme. Nearly a third of this total was attributable to the Pooling Our Resources scheme in Sussex. Over 33,000 m of business and commercial floorspace was improved as a result of the SRB programme, 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 of which were attributed to the Littlehampton 2000 scheme. Nearly half the 28 kilometres of road improvements 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 and Sussex, 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 was focused on widening youth opportunities.
2
135
Other non-economic outputs This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being other noneconomic outputs. The range of outputs covered here is an illustration of the varying non-economic motives behind many SRB schemes. Table 8.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in 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
Output category 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 Hampshire & Isle of Wight 0 1221 0 807 33 0 0 145846 16450 57023 516 84 174 376 24155 4 30 60952 Kent and Medway 0 709 0 151 28 16 0 211161 33724 51826 2760 133 700 2283 12554 7 11 58467 MKOB Surrey and Berkshire 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 25650 3794 10320 146 0 114 30 13654 0 0 3146 Sussex Total
0 11 0 435 0 92 0 16684 2687 8760 231 38 94 78 3303 3 1 3068
148 415 167 1633 28 0 0 45507 4759 7499 1038 520 56 632 11267 9502 1 96080
288 2,356 167 3,026 89 108 0 444,848 61,414 135,428 4,691 775 1,138 3,399 64,933 9,516 43 221,713
136
Output category 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
Hampshire & Isle of Wight 81572 100880 23 21 17 12877 4657 88031 8 16 101 954 1200 5306 32 619
Kent and Medway 137950 346369 25 126 132 7689 138675 148030 15 65 88 2985 2021 13644 46 4764
MKOB
Surrey and Berkshire 5606 7793 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 460 148 1003 17 0
Sussex
Total
3964 17702 4 3 35 978 1111 1954 16 6 17 606 369 2443 20 298
8718 21262 4 5 6 10270 11806 750 4 5 5 1888 2471 7832 70 96
237,810 494,006 74 155 190 31,814 156,249 238,765 43 92 211 6,893 6,209 30,228 185 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 dwellings were completed only in Sussex and that sub-region was also responsible for more than half of the local authority dwellings improved. The majority of these housing-related outputs in Sussex resulted from the Hailsham East Area Renewal scheme, which had housing as one of its key intervention areas.
137
The Kent and Medway sub-region is responsible for 50% or more of many of the non-economic outputs achieved. These are mainly attributable to the combined Dover Urban Regeneration and East Kent Coalfield Regeneration scheme, which was designed to empower local communities by engaging them in initiatives designed to combat social exclusion, and the Believing in Folkestone scheme, which had 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 dominance stands out. The Hampshire & Isle of Wight and Kent and Medway sub-regions accounted for nearly 80% of the people benefiting from community safety initiatives; the MKOB sub-region accounted for almost 90% of the outputs in the housing association dwellings improved category, which was entirely attributable to the Barton Community Regeneration scheme.

Table 8.12 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of core RDA outputs. Table 8.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the South East Region
Output category 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: SRB evaluation evidence received from SEEDA
Regional performance 118% 64% 120% 67% 45% 54%
The evaluation evidence suggests that the region has had a mixed performance in meeting core output 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 than expected, achieving two-thirds of target. Land reclamation and community enterprise start-ups both achieved roughly half of their targets. The best performance was for the number of people trained who obtained qualifications, which exceeded its target by 20%. Table 8.13 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other economic outputs. Table 8.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the South East Region
Output category 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed Regional performance 84% 200% 89% 114% 59% 94%
138
Output category 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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 (m ) 2B (ii) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m ) 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)
2 2
Regional performance 111% 132% 85% 205% 155% 303% 134% 92% 135% 59% 108% 58% 155% 5% 359% 114% 92%
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 for open space (5%), which is consistent with the under-performance of land improved/reclaimed for development, as illustrated in Table 8.12. The Believing in Folkestone scheme was a key underperformer here, achieving 3% and 1% of its output targets respectively in Rounds 3 and 4. Job-related outputs were also generally below target. The strongest performances were in bringing buildings back into use (359% of target achieved) and in the number of students participating in collaborative projects, where 303% of the target was achieved. Table 8.14 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other non-economic outputs. Table 8.14: Actual versus forecast non-economic outputs
Output category 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 Regional performance 47% 64% 100% 104% 49%
139
Output category 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
Regional performance 36% 0% 140% 133% 147% 48% 129% 170% 131% 244% 28824% 45% 119% 115% 152% 121% 204% 208% 95% 258% 473% 233% 100% 205% 214% 215% 156% 70% 138%
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 was performance in terms of supporting the community and voluntary sectors and in most categories related to community safety. For some of these categories we received very few pieces of evaluation evidence, which has made it harder to provide a robust assessment of performance to target. For example, we received only two sets of output data for private dwellings completed and only three sets of output data with regard to housing association dwellings improved. For dwellings in tenant management organisation, only one
140
output data set was available. The table shows an over-achievement in traffic calming measures of 28,824%. This is largely attributable to the Littlehampton 2000 scheme, where an output of 9,501 was achieved against a target of 1. The scheme also reported very large over-performance in a number of other output categories. The evaluation report for the scheme mentions the possibility of shortcomings in output recording 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 SEEDAs gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides a view of the net core RDA outputs for the SRB programme in the South East Region, as illustrated in Table 8.15. Table 8.15: Net core RDA outputs in the South East Region
Output category 1A (i) Number of jobs created 1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded 1C Number of people trained Hampshire & Isle of Wight 225 85 2707 Kent and Medway 289 210 4841 MKOB 36 31 1822 Surrey and Berkshire 39 0 768 Sussex 352 259 2310 Total 941 585 12,448
141
Output category obtaining qualifications 2C (ii) New businesses supported surviving 52 weeks 6B Land improved / reclaimed for development (Ha) 8E Number of community enterprise start-ups
Kent and Medway
MKOB
Surrey and Berkshire
Sussex
Total
17 1 5
16 4 22
11 0 18
0 0 0
25 81 8
68 86 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 SRB programme and a further 585 were safeguarded. The South Easts SRB programme also resulted in more than 12,000 net people obtaining qualifications, in 68 net new businesses surviving for a year after receiving business support, in 86 hectares of land being improved or reclaimed for development and in the establishment of 53 community enterprise start-ups. Other economic outputs Table 8.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the South East Region. Table 8.16: Net other economic outputs in the South East Region
Output category 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal and social development Hampshire & Isle of Wight 9589 Kent and Medway 4324 MKOB Surrey and Berkshire 0 Sussex Total
17
4679
18,609
23561
47468
3578
3121
18284
96,012
1826 10798 148 83 36 16
1090 15489 298 215 81 40
195 2634 46 24 18 1
680 11424 68 42 66 0
432 7853 131 46 92 54
4,222 48,198 690 409 293 111
369
121
18
62
193
763
61931
49875
9330
12228
31882
165,245
142
Output category 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) Business / commercial 2 floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business / 2 commercial floorspace (m ) 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)
Kent and Medway
MKOB
Sussex
Total
215 147
496 8102
76 200
24 93
1579 16989
2,390 25,530
36 135 13833 3738 67 17
245 65 5702 1521 53 7
1 33 126 468 32 0
0 0 0 0 5 0
256 63 9903 9454 54 16
537 295 29,564 15,181 212 40
216 47 96 0 6
653 68 39 1 2
401 2 5 0 1
123 7 0 0 0
757 1 231 1 13
2,150 125 371 2 22
As per Table 8.15, applying the gross to net metrics to the various output categories reduces the levels of claimable outputs for all categories. However, again, because the same metrics are applied equally across all the sub-regions there is no change in the relative proportions of outputs the different sub-regions contribute to overall programme performance. Other non-economic outputs Table 8.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by the SRB programme in the South East Region. Table 8.17: Net other non-economic outputs in the South East Region
Output category 3A (i) Number of private dwellings completed 3A (ii) Number of private dwellings improved Hampshire & Isle of Wight 0 574 Kent and Medway 0 333 MKOB Surrey and Berkshire 59 0 Sussex Total
0 5
62 195
121 1,107
143
Output category 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
Kent and Medway
MKOB
Sussex
Total
0 404
0 76
0 218
0 0
0 817
0 1,513
15
13
13
40
46
54
0 75840 8061 26801 253
0 109804 16525 24358 1352
0 8676 1317 4117 113
0 13338 1859 4850 72
0 23664 2332 3524 509
0 231,321 30,093 63,651 2,299
47 89 203 16909 2
74 357 1233 8788 3
21 48 42 2312 1
0 58 16 9558 0
291 29 341 7887 4466
434 580 1,835 45,453 4,473
23 38400 49759 66581 15 13
8 36834 84150 228604 16 78
1 1933 2418 11683 3 2
0 1982 3420 5143 12 0
1 60530 5318 14033 3 3
33 139,679 145,064 326,044 48 96
144
Output category 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
Hampshire & Isle of Wight 12 8113 2282 42255 4 10 49 591 792 3024 21 310
Kent and Medway 90 4844 67951 71054 8 39 43 1851 1334 7777 30 2382
MKOB
Surrey and Berkshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285 98 572 11 0
Sussex
Total
24 616 544 938 8 4 8 376 244 1393 13 149
4 6470 5785 360 2 3 2 1171 1631 4464 46 48
130 20,043 76,562 114,607 22 55 103 4,274 4,098 17,230 120 2,889
As per Tables 8.15 and 8.16, applying the gross to net metrics to the various output categories reduces the levels of claimable outputs for all categories. However, again, because the same metrics are applied equally across all the sub-regions there is no change in the relative proportions of outputs the different sub-regions contribute to overall programme performance. Other outputs Our review of SEEDAs SRB evaluation evidence uncovered a range of additional outputs outside of the 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 larger additional 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)
145
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 we reviewed 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 track changes across SRB areas over the lifetime of the programme. The Hailsham East Area Renewal scheme resulted in 31% of 17 year-olds attending full-time education and training at the end of the scheme, compared to 24% at the beginning. There was also a Community Centre built for the area and a consequent 700% increase in the number of people accessing community facilities. Attendance at college increased by 2% during the scheme and the number of incidents of domestic abuse fell from 400 to 137. In the Spotlight on Bletchley scheme, a number of projects aimed to physically improve the area and peoples perceptions of it. By the end of the scheme the number of racial incidents in the area had decreased, the level of reporting of incidents had increased and the police and local schools had become active in targeting race-related crimes. Youth participation also improved significantly through various sports activities, heritage projects and confidence-building exercises that were developed in the scheme. The Adur Industry First scheme resulted in some significant local impacts the number of unemployment claimants fell by 70%, with the percentage of males seeking craft or manual employment down from 50% of Adurs total unemployed to 21%. At the end of the scheme, Adur's residents mean weekly pay was higher than the Sussex average, whereas at the beginning it was 16% below. And at the beginning of the scheme Adur had five of the 20 most multiply-deprived wards in West Sussex; at the end it had none. The Nai Roshni scheme resulted in a 61% increase in the participation in adult education by people from ethnic minority communities. The East Reading scheme provided 46 affordable homes to the area and a nursery. One of the weaknesses of the SRB programme which came out in stakeholder consultations was that the schemes were generally more focused on outputs rather than outcomes, which meant that some schemes occasionally lacked a strategic focus.

The evaluation evidence we reviewed intimated that partnership working in the region was generally good, though not without its problems. The Gateways to Community Success and North Kent Gateway to Opportunity schemes showed evidence of partner involvement at operational level, which helped to manage the process of programme implementation. Partnership processes and procedures were said to 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 was credited with incorporating a very local perspective into the planning of initiatives taken within the
146
scheme, such as a neighbourhood nursery and a new health centre. In the Enterprising Leigh Park scheme, the partnership board incorporated the majority of key stakeholders and organisations. This was considered to have helped increase the synergy between the scheme and other local initiatives and strategies. The partnership that was formed to administer the East Oxford Action scheme was praised in the schemes evaluation for their involvement at both strategy formulation and operational levels. When the scheme was drawing to a close the partnership formed a new organisation, East Oxford Action Limited, 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 the managers ensured that schemes were focused in line with community needs. Effective management was cited as the key factor in turning the Community-Based Capacity Building in Blackbird Leys scheme into a success, when at first it had been performing less well. The evaluation notes that the programme manager successfully affected the restructuring of the scheme, forged the partnerships that led to a participatory learning approach, supported innovative project delivery and turned the Board into a strategic partnership that could pick up on funding opportunities and bring a local perspective to activities. The evaluation of the East Oxford Action scheme also mentions the leadership of the programme manager 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 of private business members. However, the performance of the programme governance and management functions was not always good. In the Gateways to Community Success, Thames Gateway and North Kent Gateway to Opportunity schemes, the communication between the programme management team and the project delivery 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 was mentioned in the evaluation of the Pooling Our Resources, Eastbourne scheme and was also mentioned in our consultations with stakeholders. Project appraisal processes were usually considered by evaluators to have been effective, with evaluations reporting a clear separation of roles and responsibilities and clear guidance in place. In a couple 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 appraisal panel, which was led by local residents from the communities of Rowner and Weacock. This enabled significant resident involvement at a decision-making level. The Spotlight on Bletchley scheme reported strong community involvement in the management and development of the scheme. It also had 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 evaluations cited onerous reporting systems and a lack of clarity in the way in which monitoring data was collected as being weaknesses. The requirement to submit quarterly monitoring returns was felt by some to be an unnecessary pressure. Others found the changing performance measurements to be cumbersome and confusing.
147
Evaluations generally reported good levels of community consultation in bid development, within scheme activities, in the project appraisal system and in programme-level decision-making. The Spotlight on Bletchley and Weacock & Rowner Compact, Gosport schemes referred to significant community 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 operated through a resident appraisal panel. The East Oxford Action scheme is said to have had widespread community 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 Leys scheme reported that insufficient one-to-one work had been done in supporting and mentoring community activists, with a lack of support available to community groups with regard to training. The stakeholder consultations indicated that community involvement and community membership improved 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 and created valuable networks. East Oxford Action Limited is a community-led social enterprise that took over the running of East Oxford Action SRB in 2003. It is led by a partnership that would arguably not have 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 considered that the redevelopment of Littlehampton would have taken place without the Littlehampton 2000 SRB scheme, but that the redevelopment would have occurred over a significantly longer timescale. Some stakeholders also commented that areas such as Hastings and Slough benefited significantly from SRB and perhaps would have gone into decline without it. SRB was considered by some stakeholders to be responsible for kick-starting the regeneration of those areas and for bringing the right people and organisations together. Leverage Stakeholders considered public sector funding to be easier to secure than private sector funding. This is borne out by Table 8.18, which considers the funding leveraged by the 114.6 million worth of expenditure it has been possible to obtain leverage information for. That 114.6 million of SRB spend leveraged a total of 240.5 million from public and private sector sources, at a ratio of 2.10 levered for every 1 of SRB expenditure. Table 8.18: Leverage in the South East Region ( million)
SRB Round Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Total SRB spend 18.51 5.20 26.10 64.81 114.62 Private sector funding 35.31 3.41 15.81 37.08 91.61 Public sector funding 27.17 12.22 40.31 69.22 148.92 Actual leverage ratio 1 : 3.38 1 : 3.01 1 : 2.15 1 : 1.64 1 : 2.10
Source: SEEDA evaluation evidence
148
Stakeholders commented that private sector engagement often depended on how the objectives were relayed to business. It was felt by some that the private sector needed to have an incentive to engage with 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 of those schemes that did succeed was the Turning the Tide: A Bright Coastal Future scheme, which succeeded 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 exit strategies or forward plans and sought to secure alternative funding to sustain their existence beyond the end of SRB. Some were successful at this the East Oxford Action scheme, which became the East 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 than revenue projects, which may not be entirely surprising. The Dover Urban Regeneration scheme and the East Kent Coalfield Regeneration scheme are two examples of capital projects that continued when SRB ended. Many schemes did not survive the end of SRB. In some cases the scheme had run its course; in others, a lack of succession planning was blamed on the inability to survive post-SRB. The stakeholders we spoke to suggested that sustainability had been more achievable where relationships had been developed with local communities and local authorities, and where projects had been proactive in securing funding post-SRB. An example given was the Nai Roshni scheme, which Slough Borough Council has continued to support since SRB finished.

The evaluation evidence we reviewed indicated that the SRB programme in the South East had a range of strengths. The broad consensus from the evaluation evidence is that schemes were generally well managed, with committed and effective programme managers in place. Appraisal and monitoring systems were generally considered to be robust. Partnership working and engagement levels seem to have been generally good, and many schemes managed to secure the effective involvement of a variety of community, voluntary, public and private sector organisations. A range of positive outcomes and 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 on outputs as opposed to outcomes. Some scheme partnerships were accused of not beginning their succession 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 and monitoring systems in some schemes.
Value for money

It would usually be standard practice to assess the value for money of the outputs generated by an evaluated 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 the diverse range of outputs in this programme and the difficulties in disaggregating economic and noneconomic data make such a calculation inappropriate. More detail on this can be found in Section 4,
149
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 local regeneration. Schemes were considered by evaluators to have largely had a good mix of projects and to have sought to address a wide range of community priorities and essential social objectives. The majority of activity took place in the Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Kent & Medway and Sussex subregions, in line with their relatively higher levels of deprivation. The programme generally performed well against performance targets and some notable economic and social impacts were achieved, ranging from reduced unemployment to increases in adult education, from a decline in racial incidents through to increased youth participation in sporting and heritage events. Some schemes were successful in securing involvement from a variety of community, public and private sector sources, both strategically and operationally, and more than 2 of funding was levered for every 1 of SRB expenditure. A common criticism of the SRB programme in the South East was that it tried to do too much with limited funds, sometimes with only limited strategic coherence. There was also at times perceived to be 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 not begin their succession planning early enough, which prevented some schemes from continuing after SRB ended.
150
9 The impact of SRB in the South West
Introduction
This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the South West region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this report and includes: background information on the South West 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 based on an assessment of additionality; an assessment of outcomes and impacts; and a consideration of Strategic Added Value.
Overview of the South West region

The South West is the largest region in England in terms of area. It includes 15 county and unitary authorities, extending from Gloucestershire and Wiltshire to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. South West England is characterised by a largely rural landscape, a long coastline, relatively few major cities and many small settlements. The major cities are the engines of the regional economy but the rural nature of much of the region remains a dominant feature. The region has experienced dynamic population growth in recent years from inward migration, with the current population now standing at around 5 million people. The region has relatively high life expectancy and a high proportion of 'healthy elderly' older people with good health, disposable income and spare time which help shape the social, cultural and environmental activities in the region. The economic output of the region was around 89.5 billion in 2006, contributing around 8% to national gross value added (GVA). GVA per capita was 17,467, which is just below the UK average 26 of 18,631. The 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-term effect of the strong inward migration has been that output and job growth in the region has been
26
ONS 2007, Regional GVA December 2007.
151
slower than population growth. Within this relatively productive and wealthy region, the South West also has a few under performing sub-regions, such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. As such, the region has been eligible for European Structural Funds through Objective One, Two and Three and receives significant financial support from the European Union. Overall, however, the South West has lower deprivation than most English regions. As outlined in Table 3.3, Index of Multiple Deprivation Data from 2004 indicates that 4.9% of the 8,120 27 most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs) in England are in the South West region, which makes it the second least-deprived region in the country, on this measurement. However, this relative affluence masks significant sub-regional variations, as outlined in Table 9.1. Table 9.1: SRB deprivation figures for sub-regions within SWRDA
Sub-region Number of SOAs in the sub-region in bottom IMD quartile nationally 89 58 51 46 31 56 21 21 24 397 % of SOAs in the subregion as a whole 8% 10% 17% 14% 11% 5% 10% 12% 12% 100% % of regional total in lowest IMD quartile nationally 22% 15% 13% 12% 8% 14% 5% 5% 6% 100%
Bristol Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Devon Dorset Gloucestershire Plymouth Somerset West of England Wiltshire Total
As Table 9.1 shows, the highest levels of deprivation in the region are in the urban centres of Bristol and 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 and proportion of schemes that took place in each SRB round and providing a comparison with the national picture.
27
152
Table 9.2: Number of SRB schemes in the South West Region

Source: CLG
Number of SRB schemes in the region (% of regional total) 10 (14%) 11 (15%) 14 (20%) 10 (14%) 8 (11%) 18 (25%) 71 (100%) 50 (70%)
Number of SRB schemes nationally (% of national total) 201 (20%) 172 (17%) 182 (18%) 121 (12%) 163 (16%) 189 (18%) 1028 (100%) 655 (64%)
Table 9.2 shows the number of individual schemes by Round that took place in the South West and contrasts this with the programme nationally. The SRB programme in the South West comprised a total 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, slightly higher than the national figure of 64%. There is some variation in the number of SRB schemes between Rounds, from 8 schemes in Round 5 up to 18 in Round 6. The South Wests share of the total number of schemes was not consistent by Round, which is not unique to the South West.
SRB expenditure
Table 9.3 provides an overview of budgeted SRB expenditure per Round in the region, outlining the amount and proportion of expenditure that took place in each SRB Round and again providing a comparison with the national picture. Table 9.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure
SRB Round SRB expenditure (m) % of regions total SRB expenditure 20% 23% 14% 6% 18% 19% 100% 57% % of national SRB Round expenditure 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2%
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Overall total Rounds 3-6
Source: CLG
33.9 37.9 23.1 10.4 30.9 31.7 167.9 96.1
153
The South West received 167.9 million of funding over the six rounds of SRB, of which 96.1 million occurred in Rounds 3 to 6. This equates to 2% of national SRB funding, making the South West the second smallest recipient of SRB money across the regions, only slightly ahead of the East of England. Expenditure was not evenly split across the six Rounds of SRB. Rounds 1 and 2 received the highest proportion of funding, 43%, whilst Rounds 3 and 4 received a mere 20% combined. From examining the evaluation evidence and the guidance of the time, there does not seem to be an obvious explanation for this variation. Rounds 3 to 6 accounted for 57% of SRB regional expenditure whereas 70% of SRB schemes were carried out, as shown in Table 9.2. This seems to suggest that the earlier Rounds funded larger schemes and the latter Rounds funded smaller schemes. The fall in expenditure in Round 4 is consistent with the national picture. However, although expenditure fell sharply, there was only a small fall in the number of SRB schemes. Between Rounds 3 and 4 the number of schemes less than 1 million stayed the same but the number of schemes greater than 1 million fell by half. Table 9.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of SWRDAs budgeted expenditure per SRB Round. Table 9.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round, per sub-region ( million)
Sub-region Bristol Cornwall Devon Dorset Gloucestershire Plymouth Somerset West of England Wiltshire Totals Round 3 6.7 1.3 0.5 1.4 1.3 5.1 0.8 5.1 0.8 23.0 Round 4 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 2.9 3.6 1.1 10.4 Round 5 12.2 2.0 2.7 0.2 1.8 11.8 0.2 30.9 Round 6 8.4 5.0 0.1 1.5 2.2 8.4 3.6 2.4 0.1 31.7 Totals 28.6 9.1 3.7 3.4 8.2 28.9 5.6 7.7 0.9 96.2
Source: PwC analysis of CLG data
Bristol and Plymouth received the highest proportions of SRB funding in the South West, each receiving over 28 million. There is a big difference between the funding received by these two subregions and all the others. In contrast, Wiltshire, Devon and Dorset received a combined total of 8 million. Despite having 36% of the most deprived SOAs in the South West, Bristol and Plymouth received well over half the total funding. Cornwall and Plymouth have very similar proportions of deprived areas in the 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.
154
Table 9.5: SRB actual expenditure between 2002-2007

Source: SWRDA
SWRDAs total relevant expenditure for the purposes of the overall RDA impact evaluation is 428.2 million, meaning that SRB accounts for 13% of SWRDAs expenditure in the overall RDA impact evaluation. The figures in Table 9.5 do not include all the spend on the SRB schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 that we have evaluated, as some of the spend on schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 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 The meta-evaluation is a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations and other data sources for SRB schemes. We are therefore heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of evaluation evidence we have received from the RDA. Our starting point for collecting evidence was the official CLG list of successful SRB bids for Rounds 3 to 6 for the six participating RDAs. We liaised with SWRDAs nominated lead contact over a twomonth 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 schemes for which we did not receive any evidence. SWRDA had little difficulty in locating evaluations, as the majority of final reports were stored on their website. In most instances the reports we received included the information we needed. However, we occasionally 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 not contain the relevant information but where that was the case, SWRDA was able to locate missing output and expenditure data for us in the form of monitoring data. We assumed that the data contained in independent evaluations was correct, so monitoring data needed to be consistently similar to evaluation evidence across a range of evaluations in order to be considered reliable for our purposes. We cross-referenced the monitoring data we received with seventeen final evaluations and considered the data to be consistent enough to be used to augment our evidence base. SWRDA has one scheme that is subject to an ongoing evaluation. The final evaluation has not been completed in time to be used in our work but we have been able to include monitoring data for this scheme.
155
Table 9.6 outlines the amount of usable evidence we received per SRB Round and indicates the coverage 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 expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources. Table 9.6: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round
SRB Round Total number of SRB schemes 14 10 8 18 50 Number of schemes with usable evidence received 14 9 8 18 49 Percentage of schemes for that Round 100% 90% 100% 100% 98% Percentage of budgeted expenditure for that Round 100% 66% 100% 100% 96% Amount of budgeted expenditure for that Round (m) 23.1 6.8 30.9 31.7 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 individual schemes, covering 98% of all Rounds 3 to 6 schemes and covering 96% of Rounds 3 to 6 budgeted expenditure. 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 report but no output information. Table 9.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme. This table illustrates the number of schemes where we received an evaluation, rather than usable evidence. We received 48 evaluations but we received usable evidence for 49 schemes, including the use of monitoring data. Table 9.7: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round and by size of scheme
SRB Round Number of schemes under 1m Number of schemes with evaluations received 6 6 3 7 22 Number of schemes 1m - 3m Number of schemes with evaluations received 6 3 3 6 18 Number of schemes above 3m Number of schemes with evaluations received 2 1 2 3 8
6 6 3 9 24
6 3 3 6 18
2 1 2 3 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 of schemes undertaken and evaluation evidence received was in the lowest expenditure category, of schemes under 1 million. The smallest number of evaluations schemes undertaken and evaluations received 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 individual evaluations can tell us about RDAs expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 9.8 provides an
156
overview of what we have found. Table 9.8: Prevalence of output/expenditure data in evaluation evidence received

Source: PwC
Table 9.8 only includes schemes for which we have received evaluation reports and does not include monitoring data. Out of 48 evaluations received, 28 contained actual and forecast expenditure. Thirtynine contained gross outputs but only one evaluation that we received contained an assessment of net outputs. This evaluation, for West Cornwall Employment Programme 1998-2002, does not state clearly how the net outputs have been calculated. The limited amount of relevant information on additionality means that we will need to apply the additionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to SWRDAs gross SRB outputs, in order to estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, this approach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the best option available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4, which explains the meta-evaluations approach and methodology.
Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with six key strategic stakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitative information about the nature and impact of SRB in the region in effect, to understand some of the nuances that may not be apparent from reading evaluation reports. We spoke to a mixture of people, both internal to SWRDA and amongst external partners, to try to understand more about SWRDAs overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to the delivery 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 most helpful 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 augmenting the evaluation evidence we have reviewed.
Gross outputs
We have collected gross output data from the evaluation evidence we have reviewed across the sixtythree official SRB output categories. A template was produced (and agreed with all the participating RDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidence we received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categories
157
that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed. This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRB outputs 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 qualitative fields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; community engagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths and weaknesses. This recognition of schemes economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs is important in terms of assessing performance. We have separated the sixty-three gross outputs we have 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 SRB outputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets. We have classified these as core RDA outputs for the purposes of this meta-evaluation. Table 9.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the South West Region. These outputs account for 92.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 96% of the forecast 96.1 million total SRB spend.
158
Table 9.9: Gross core RDA outputs in the South West Region
Output category 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 Bristol 646 551 6,576 24 5 23 1 1 3 Cornwall 895 152 2360 Devon 87 9 769 780 49 1 1 16 Dorset 109 Gloucestershire 356 201 9763 107 Plymouth 1,400 853 21,292 437 127 10 27 Somerset 363 6,087 1,899 9 West England 113 27 5,295 11 4,720 6 3 Wiltshire 61 160 305 13 Total 4,031 8,040 49,039 650 4,855 90
Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG data and SWRDA evaluation evidence
159
The evaluation evidence shows that in gross terms the SRB programme in the South West created 4,031 jobs, of which one-third were in Plymouth, and safeguarded a further 8,040, mainly as a result of the Communities First in Rural Somerset (CFIRS II) scheme. The scheme was designed to support farmers during the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis. SRB in the South West led to 49,039 people gaining qualifications, a large proportion of which took place in Plymouth as a result of the Working Together for a Better Future scheme. Six hundred and fifty new businesses supported survived for one year, 4,855 hectares of land were improved or reclaimed for development and 90 community enterprises were established. Other economic outputs Of the remaining 57 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 RDAs core outputs. Table 9.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the South West Region. These outputs account for 92.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 96% of the forecast 96.1 million total SRB spend.
160
Table 9.10: Gross other economic outputs in the South West Region
Output category 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal and social development Bristol Cornwall Devon Dorset Gloucestershire Plymouth Somerset West England 25,909 Wiltshire Total
4,980
6,332
1,160
1,237
1,804
28,151
71
69,646
37,083
7,025
1,307
632
10,105
6,157
974
8,566
231
72,080
1,879 36,834 959 810 233 162
1,266 11,878 114 60 50 8
257 4,164 6 4 5
322 36,507 161 103 61 34
911 43,350 518 655 841 389
900 10,244 614 203 203 28
529 4,057 380 73 41 37
311 42,062 300 78 31 18
120 3,203 110 58 29 -
6,495 192,299 3,161 2,040 1,493 681
1,177
1,109
38
104
495
171
99
93
3,286
62,110
28,699
15,293
18,101
27,118
18,651
4,895
25,643
5,018
205,528
161
Output category 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 / 2 commercial floorspace (m ) 2B (ii) Improved business/commercial 2 floorspace (m ) 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
Bristol
Cornwall
Devon
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Plymouth
Somerset
West England
Wiltshire
Total
173 1,614
220 2,449
229 77
361 707
102 1,282
338 1,534
13 25
542 2,346
1,978 10,034
111 305
15 45 41
8 -
40 39 1,200
126 158
2 144 7,092
22 180
18 24 56
37 710
75 556 9,742
32,957 50 195
4 -
3 -
107 22
5,353 260 42
8,129 194 32
284 21 21
3,490 19 7
524 14 8
50,737 672 327
1,174 84 34
256 1 57
123 2 3
33 2 7
1,430 3 14
6,233 12 27
1,157 1 2
2,458 92 108
73 3 38
12,937 200 290
162
Output category 6D (i) Roads built (km) 6D (ii) Roads improved (km)
Bristol -
Cornwall -
Devon -
Dorset 4
Gloucestershire 2
Plymouth 9
Somerset -
West England 2
Wiltshire -
Total 18
163
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 West England sub-regions, which contributed around 80% to the regional total. Over 70,000 pupils benefited from projects to improve attainment. Over half of this activity took place in Bristol, with the overwhelming majority attributed to the Bringing Bristol Together and Working Together for Change, Hartcliffe and Withywood schemes. More than 6,000 residents accessed employment through SRB funded training advice, According to the evaluation evidence over 190,000 weeks of training were provided through the SRB programme. 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 681 people who were formerly unemployed entering self employment. Over 3,000 people from the disadvantaged groups targeted by the SRB programme gained a job. Over 200,000 young people were said to have benefited from SRB projects to promote personal and social development. Bristol accounted for 30% of this activity, with the majority of this activity happening in the Bringing Bristol Together and Working Together for Change, Hartcliffe and Withywood schemes. Around 2,000 employers and 10,000 students took part in collaborative projects. Over 500 business start-ups were created; 672 new business were supported through the SRB programme and 327 2 survived for 78 weeks. Almost 10,000 m of new business and commercial floorspace was created, of 2 which almost 70% was created in Plymouth. Over 50,000 m 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 land was improved or reclaimed for open space and 18 kilometres of roads were improved. Other non-economic outputs This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being other noneconomic outputs. The range of outputs covered here is an illustration of the varying non-economic motives behind many SRB schemes. Table 9.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the South West Region. These outputs account for 92.5 million of SRB expenditure, or 96% of the forecast 96.1 million total SRB spend.
164
Table 9.11: Gross other non-economic outputs in the South West Region
Output category 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 Bristol Cornwall Devon Dorset Gloucestershire Plymouth Somerset West England 234 17 2,519 Wiltshire Total
363 1,094
1,429 435
440
566 -
24 150 -
363 243
54 256
70 1,346
94 3,159 17 6,333
14
20
38
47
81
207
826
207
1,033
63,840 7,034 22,104 5,240
9,356 698 1,167 841
13,312 3,014 6,679 1,077
560,697 123,022 73,295 5
15,516 655 2,501 3,292
4,143 882 1,031 259
88,177 13,699 18,682 1,509
32,433 6,993 11,513 679
0 787,474 155,997 136,972 12,902
165
Output category 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 programmes 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
Bristol
Cornwall
Devon
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Plymouth
Somerset
West England
Wiltshire
Total
5,119 533 427 16,573 3
2 159 217 6,909 2
3 25 17 842 -
8 26 55 9,538 2
1,068 389 7,289 1
6 73 57 3,609 14
51 84 112 995 -
129 187 1,334 12,471 11
18 177 139 3,049 3
5,336 2,332 2,747 61,275 36
6 31,619 17,931 24,817 17 7 13
7 34,537 98,947 243,729 2 7
1,065 150 1 -
325 700 16,509 1 7
1,910 88,610 9,568 14,248 231 10 12
14,652 14,410 31,220 25 9 11
5,580 4,290 15,508 9 5 8
11 7,020 43,493 50,031 17 16 82
9 18,258 11,739 9,666 2 3 2
1,943 201,666 201,228 405,728 301 54 142
166
Output category 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 programmes 10A Number of childcare places provided
Bristol
Cornwall
Devon
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Plymouth
Somerset
West England
Wiltshire
Total
480 1,912 1,205 9 7 18 1,050 920 6,772 72 887
2,256 903 408 48 48 77 1,675 1,109 2,936 113
11,698 70 1 2 251 108 1,409 222
13,611 8 38 41 247 24 121
5,913 836 3,603 3 1 9 540 1,061 1,199 14 4,253
1,488 8,976 61,960 3 2 3 1,053 412 3,055 90 2,105
2,419 100 1,683 1 5 670 238 1,613 38 734
4,567 27,376 7,921 22 28 72 659 902 2,938 2,850
2,950 5,165 631 1 1 6 162 248 930 186
31,771 45,338 91,022 88 89 198 6,098 5,039 21,099 238 11,471
167
From the evaluation evidence that we have received it seems there was more emphasis on improving existing houses, rather than construction only 300 houses were completed but over 10,000 were improved. Almost half the number of private dwellings improved were in Cornwall and over one-third of the 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 had access to more than 300 new health facilities, around 226,000 accessed 54 new sports facilities and over 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. Gloucestershire accounted for a significant proportion of the beneficiaries. The Pivotal Drugs scheme was the chief contributor to this total, but it should be noted that the scheme seems to have used the population statistics of Gloucester and the sub-region of Gloucestershire as the number of beneficiaries, so these outputs are likely to have been over-reported. Thirty-six traffic calming measures and 1,943 waste management and recycling schemes were introduced. Of the 1,943 waste management and recycling schemes, 1,910 were said to have occurred in Gloucestershire. More than 6,000 voluntary and 5,000 community organisations were supported. More than 20,000 individuals were involved in voluntary work and over 200 employees were involved in volunteering schemes. The SRB programme also contributed to the provision of 11,471 childcare places, over a third of which were in Gloucestershire.

Table 9.12 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of core RDA outputs. Table 9.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the South West Region
Output category 1A (i) Number of jobs created 1A (ii) Number of jobs safeguarded 1C Number of people trained obtaining qualifications 2C (ii) Surviving 52 weeks 6B Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha) 8E Number of community enterprise start-ups
Source: SRB evaluation evidence received from SWRDA
When comparing actual performance to forecast, the South West presents a mixed picture. The region significantly exceeded targets for the number of people trained obtaining qualifications, the amount of land improved or reclaimed for development and the number of businesses surviving for one year. The region performed to target in terms of jobs created and safeguarded but significantly under-performed in terms of community enterprise start-ups. The evaluation evidence suggests that few schemes managed to meet their target for the number of community enterprise start-ups, which may suggest the potential impact on community enterprise was overestimated or that these targets were difficult to achieve.
168
Table 9.13 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other economic outputs. Table 9.13 Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the South West Region
Output category 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number of young people benefit from projects to promote personal & 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) Improved business/commercial floorspace (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)
Regional performance 72% 210% 45% 151% 69% 80% 107% 67% 69% 342% 161% 87% 103% 75% 36% 168% 82% 52% 221% 143% 130% n/a 134%
The performance of other economic outputs is mixed, with some outputs exceeding or missing targets by wide margins. Many of the job-related targets seem to have been missed but outputs related to supporting 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 than construction. Only 44% of the target for new business or commercial floorspace was met, but the amount of floorspace improved was 343% of target. Similarly, no new roads were built but 156% of the target for road improvements was achieved. It should be noted however, that the numbers involved in road improvements were small 18 kilometres of road improvements achieved, against a target of 7 kilometres although this would not be considered to be a core SRB activity.
169
Table 9.14 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other non-economic outputs. Table 9.14: Actual versus forecast non-economic outputs
Output category 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 Regional performance 36% 107% 39% 152% 25% 220% n/a 111% 103% 101% 147% 2895% 348% 592% 263% 74% 3452% 116% 61% 128% 888% 113% 91% 63% 80% 489% 83% 163% 120% 341% 455% 267% 89%
170
Output category 10A Number of childcare places provided

Regional performance 188%
Again, the performance of these non-economic outputs is variable but most outputs have exceeded their targets, some by exceptionally wide margins. Aside from the fact that many schemes will have performed strongly, achieving performance results against target such as 3,452% (number of waste management and recycling schemes), 2,895% (number of commercial buildings with upgraded security) and 888% (number of new health facilities) suggests that partnerships may have sometimes had difficulties in setting appropriate targets for some of these less familiar indicators.

Net outputs
Core RDA outputs Applying the additionality coefficients to SWRDAs gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides a view of the net core RDA outputs for the SRB programme in the South West Region, as illustrated in Table 9.15.
171
Table 9.15: Net core RDA outputs in the South West Region
Output category Bristol Cornwall Devon Dorset Gloucestershire Plymouth Somerset West England 46 12 2,965 5 2,313 5 Wiltshire Total
265 237 3,683 11 2 18
367 65 1,322 1 1
36 4 431 2
44 437 22 1
146 86 5,467 47 12
574 367 11,924 192 62 8
149 2,617 1,063 4 21
25 69 171 6 2
1,653 3,457 27,462 287 2,379 70
Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG/University of Cambridge data and SWRDA evaluation evidence
172
In terms of net outputs, the SRB programme led to the creation of 1,653 jobs and safeguarded a further 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 SRB programme helped 70 community enterprises to start up and nearly 2,500 hectares of land was improved or reclaimed for development. Other economic outputs Table 9.16 provides an overview of the net other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the South West Region.
173
Table 9.16: Net other economic outputs in the South West Region
Output category 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal and social development Bristol Cornwall Devon Dorset Gloucestershire Plymouth Somerset West England 10,882 Wiltshire Total
2,092
2,660
487
520
758
11,823
30
29,251
19,654
3,723
693
335
5,356
3,263
516
4,540
122
38,202
1,165 13,260 479 389 133 91
785 4,276 57 29 29 4
159 1,499 3 0 2 3
200 13,143 81 49 35 19
565 15,606 259 314 479 218
558 3,688 307 97 116 16
328 1,461 190 35 23 21
193 15,142 150 37 18 10
74 1,153 55 28 17 0
4,027 69,228 1,581 979 851 381
718
676
23
63
302
104
60
57
2,004
29,192
13,489
7,188
8,507
12,745
8,766
2,301
12,052
2,358
96,598
174
Output category 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) Business/commercial 2 floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial 2 floorspace (m ) 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
Bristol
Cornwall
Devon
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Plymouth
Somerset
West England
Wiltshire
Total
104 791
132 1,200
137 38
217 346
61 628
203 752
8 12
325 1,150
0 0
1,187 4,917
0 47 110
9 19 15
0 3 0
24 16 432
0 53 57
1 60 2,553
0 9 65
11 10 20
0 16 256
46 234 3,507
14,831 22 90
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 47 10
2,409 114 19
3,658 85 15
128 9 10
1,571 8 3
236 6 4
22,832 296 150
505 64 18
110 1 30
53 1 2
14 1 4
615 2 7
2,680 9 14
498 1 1
1,057 70 57
31 2 20
5,563 152 154
175
Output category into use 6D (i) Roads built (km) 6D (ii) Roads improved (km)
Bristol
Cornwall
Devon
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Plymouth
Somerset
West England
Wiltshire
Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
0 2
0 7
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 13
176
Table 9.16 shows the level of net other economic outputs. The variation is similar to that discussed in relation 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 of 2 construction jobs, provided almost 70,000 training weeks, created 3,507 m of new commercial space, reclaimed 152 hectares of land for development, enabled almost 100,000 young people to benefit from projects to promote personal and social development and enabled 5,600 businesses to receive advice as a result of SRB-assisted activities. Other non-economic outputs Table 9.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the South West Region.
177
Table 9.17: Net other non-economic outputs in the South West Region
Output category 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 Bristol Cornwall Devon Dorset Gloucestershire Plymouth Somerset West England 0 110 0 1,260 Wiltshire Total
0 171 0 547
0 672 0 218
0 0 0 220
0 266 0 0
10 71 0 0
0 171 0 122
0 25 0 128
29 0 0 673
39 1,485 0 3,167
17
21
36
93
413
104
517
0 33,197 3,447 10,389 2,568
0 4,865 342 548 412
0 6,922 1,477 3,139 528
0 0 0 0 0
0 291,562 60,281 34,449 2
0 8,068 321 1,175 1,613
0 2,154 432 485 127
0 45,852 6,713 8,781 739
0 16,865 3,427 5,411 333
0 409,486 76,439 64,377 6,322
178
Output category 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 programmes 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
Bristol
Cornwall
Devon
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Plymouth
Somerset
West England
Wiltshire
Total
2,867 272 231 11,601 1
1 81 117 4,836 1
2 13 9 589 0
4 13 30 6,677 1
0 545 210 5,102 0
3 37 31 2,526 7
29 43 60 697 0
72 95 720 8,730 5
10 90 75 2,134 1
2,988 1,189 1,483 42,893 17
5 19,920 10,938 16,379 11 4 9
5 21,758 60,358 160,861 0 1 5
0 671 92 0 0 1 0
0 205 427 10,896 0 1 5
1,452 55,824 5,836 9,404 150 6 8
0 9,231 8,790 20,605 16 6 7
0 3,515 2,617 10,235 6 3 5
8 4,423 26,531 33,020 11 10 56
7 11,503 7,161 6,380 1 2 1
1,477 127,050 122,749 267,780 196 33 97
179
Output category 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 programmes 10A Number of childcare places provided
Bristol
Cornwall
Devon
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Plymouth
Somerset
West England
Wiltshire
Total
302 937 578 5 4 9 651 607 3,860 47 444
1,421 442 196 24 29 38 1,039 732 1,674 0 57
7,370 34 0 1 1 0 156 71 803 0 111
0 0 6,533 0 0 4 24 27 141 16 61
3,725 410 1,729 2 1 4 335 700 683 9 2,127
937 4,398 29,741 2 1 1 653 272 1,741 59 1,053
1,524 49 808 1 0 2 415 157 919 25 367
2,877 13,414 3,802 11 17 35 409 595 1,675 0 1,425
1,859 2,531 303 1 1 3 100 164 530 0 93
20,016 22,216 43,691 44 53 97 3,781 3,326 12,026 155 5,735
180
Table 9.17 shows the level of net other non-economic outputs. The variation is similar to that discussed 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 sector dwellings. More than 1,000 community safety initiatives benefitted over 400,000 people. Around 3,800 voluntary and 3,300 community organisations were supported and almost 13,000 people were involved in voluntary work. Around 20,000 people used new sporting and health facilities and over 40,000 used new cultural facilities.
Other outputs
Our review of SWRDAs SRB evaluation evidence uncovered a range of additional outputs outside of the official list of sixty-three outputs. There is data for more than fifty other outputs contained in the evaluation evidence that we have reviewed, covering a diverse range of activities. Some of the other outputs reported include housing outputs, such as reducing maintenance costs, bringing empty dwellings back into use and reducing the number of hard-to-let dwellings. There were also environmental outputs, such as cycle paths created and the number of businesses with environmental policies. The most prevalent additional output in the evidence we reviewed was around capacity building initiatives, of which 2,800 were funded.

Only some of the evaluations we have reviewed provide a discussion on outcomes and impacts. From the evidence we have, there seems to have been a wide range of outcomes and impacts achieved by the SRB programme in the South West. Outcomes in relation to employment, education and skills appear to have been somewhat mixed. For example, in the Hartcliffe and Withywood, Working for Change scheme, the number of people in fulltime work fell from 35% to 19% over the course of the scheme. However, the evaluation of the Cheltenham Lower High Street scheme reports that the scheme exceeded its targets in terms of reducing 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 number of people on state benefits have fallen. The Boscombe report notes a reduction in the proportion of people on unemployment benefits from 29% to 15% and a reduction in the proportion of residents on long-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 ethnic minority (BME) sections of the community felt that they had good access to employment, training and business opportunities. The evaluations are also generally positive in terms of schemes effects on reducing crime, drug abuse and community safety. Both the Forest of Dean and Bringing Glastonbury Together evaluation reports mention a fall in youth crime because of the diversionary opportunities the SRB scheme had helped to create. The evaluation of Weston Super Mare: Together we can make a difference is able to quantify a reduction in acquisitive crime, falling from 1,158 in 1999 to 809 in 2005. The number of young people referred to drug treatment agencies showed a decline in the North Devon area, as noted in the Visions for Young People evaluation report.
181

Developing partnerships and links with the private, public and voluntary sectors was an integral part of the SRB programme. Evidence from the stakeholder consultations and evaluation reports suggested that partnership development was generally good and improved as time went on. The common view was that there was a collaborative and positive attitude towards partnership working. The Social Inclusion Groups and Networks (SIGNS) and Communities First in Rural Somerset (CFIRS II) 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 developing relationships with delivery agencies and local authorities and that the strength of the partnership working was one of the schemes key legacies, with these relationships expected to continue after the scheme finished. The story was not uniformly positive and there were some difficulties identified in the evaluation reports. Schemes experiences with the private sector appear to have been variable. Difficulties in engaging the private sector were sometimes cited and it was felt by some that the small number of very 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 sector contributions 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 the private sector provided valuable support to the project by allowing their experienced business personnel to join the Board, providing direction and guidance. Furthermore, the private sector provided mentoring support by visiting local schools and providing opportunities for teacher placements.

Governance and management of SRB schemes seems to have been well received, though not universally. The broad view from consultations and evaluation evidence is that SRB was well managed as a programme in the South West region. A particular reason for this is the continuity of programme management that existed throughout the Rounds. When responsibility for SRB transferred from the Government Office to SWRDA, the SRB team at the Government Office moved to SWRDA as well. This continuity was highlighted in stakeholder consultations as a key success of the SRB programme in the South West. The evaluation reports provide consistent evidence of good practice and encouraging comments about programme management. For example, the final report of the Bringing Bristol Together scheme commented on the strong level of support provided to the scheme by the management team, and key stakeholders of the scheme cited the positive way in which the scheme was delivered as a major strength. The Cheltenham Lower High Street scheme was felt to have benefited from an overarching management framework and overall management was perceived to be of high quality, both in operational and strategic terms. Although management was broadly successful there were some weaknesses identified from the evaluation evidence we received. One weakness was a delay in recruiting key team members, such as the scheme manager. This sometimes led to delays in meeting scheme deadlines and submitting quarterly returns, which in turn led to delays in the release of funds from the accountable body. For example, the Weston Super Mare: Together We can Make a Difference report noted that recruitment often 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 to interfere 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 of community views and sometimes lacked vision. For example, the Board in the Bringing Bristol Together scheme is criticised in the evaluation report for not having a strong leadership, which led to a lack 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 of young 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 the overall decision making process, despite the fact there was provision for this in the schemes constitution.
Community engagement was one of the most frequently-cited benefits of SRB in the South West region. The majority of evidence from evaluation reports and stakeholder consultations demonstrates strong 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 to involvement in delivery and participation. Several evaluation reports noted the importance of the local community becoming involved in the decision-making process and taking ownership of the scheme within their area. A good example of local community empowerment and active involvement was the Working for Change, Hartcliffe and Withywood scheme, where the community was represented on the Board and on theme-specific steering groups. The scheme was able to build upon and work with existing community groups and much of the delivery was carried out by local residents. The Withywood centre is cited as a particularly good example of consulting and engaging the local community, with extensive consultation undertaken using a variety of different methods. The SRB programme not only aimed to improve participation but also to promote inclusion by involving residents from ethnic minority groups. The Gloucestershire Challenging Attitudes Partnership was specifically targeted to raise the living standards experienced by the black and ethnic minority communities in the area. The scheme aimed to identify and address barriers to training, education and support, in addition to developing and promoting minority businesses. The scheme was considered to have been reasonably successful and made some inroads into increasing the amount of opportunities available to the targeted section of the community. One area where the level of community engagement was found to be less successful was in youth involvement, although this varied from scheme to scheme. The most frequently-mentioned reason for the lack of youth involvement was the feeling that scheme Boards were out of touch with the needs of the youth in their local community. The Forest of Dean and Communities, Housing, Employment, Environmental and Regeneration Schemes (CHEERS) scheme evaluations make particular reference to this.
Strategic impact
The evaluation reports offer some patchy evidence on the strategic impact of SRB. Two of the most noteworthy achievements appear to have been the precedent set for future working relationships in the area and the ability to leverage additional funding sources. The overwhelming majority of evaluation reports remark on the benefits of joined-up working engendered by SRB and the positive legacy this has left behind. Around half the evaluation reports made mention of the added value that successful local partnership working brought. SRB partnerships in the South West involved a wide range of organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors, bringing together a broad set of skills and talents. The SRB programme is considered to have been effective at developing and strengthening community links and in fostering closer ties between various agencies. For example, the CFIRS II scheme report commented on the closer working between the scheme officers, communities and businesses. The strength of these working relationships had helped to re-build trust and understanding between statutory bodies and farmers after the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis and were expected to continue after the end of the scheme. In addition to stronger working relationships, the SRB programme also allowed some sharing of good practice and lessons learnt. A good example is the Youth Workers Network Forum in the Forest of Dean scheme, which championed knowledge sharing.
Leverage We have collected information about leverage from 77.3 million of evaluation evidence where such data was included. This programme spend of 77.3 million secured 180 million of public and private sector funding, giving a leverage ratio of 2.3 to 1. Evidence from stakeholder consultations suggested that it had been difficult to leverage funding, in particular from the private sector, with the small number of large firms in the region with the financial ability to contribute generously considered to be a key factor. 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)
SRB Round Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Total SRB spend 22.3 6.8 15.8 32.4 77.3 Private sector funding 13.8 9.4 4.9 14.5 42.6 Public sector funding 44.3 13.6 17.1 61.8 136.9 Leverage ratio 1 : 2.60 1 : 3.40 1 : 1.40 1 : 2.40 1 : 2.30
Source: SWRDA evaluation evidence
Overall the South West SRB programme is considered to have been reasonably successful in terms of programme sustainability. Where this has taken place, funding for the scheme beyond SRB often came from other programme funds, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund or the Heritage Lottery Fund. 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 Weston Super Mare: Together we can make a difference scheme were sustained, often through additional funding. Evaluation evidence suggests that this did not happen more often because schemes did not consider life beyond SRB early enough and did not give themselves sufficient time and resource to devise forward strategies. The common view from the stakeholders we spoke to is that the SRB programme did leave a lasting legacy behind. Notwithstanding the obvious example of capital expenditure, such as housing, infrastructure and environmental improvements, other examples include partnership working and the dissemination 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 in the South West. For instance, the Bringing Bristol Together evaluation report comments: Throughout this 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 management team 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 Urban Regeneration (YOUR) evaluation report comments that: Without YOURs work this sort of collaborative working probably wouldnt have happened, with the result that provision could have been duplicated and smaller providers could have been squeezed out.
184
One of the weaknesses of the programme was the inconsistency of private sector engagement. The Bringing Bristol Together evaluation notes that: There was a lack of private sector engagement or involvement in the programme and no apparent emphasis on the importance of making Bristol attractive to private investors. Another weakness cited in some reports was an insufficient clarity over the roles and functions of various stakeholders, which delayed the decision-making process. The Hamp for Hamp evaluation in particular makes reference to this: The decision to combine responsibility, however, for both project development and programme management and administration within the Programme Manager role was not wholly successfulgreater clarity of line management responsibilities and the accountable body role was also required. As is almost inevitable with so many diverse schemes, success has been mixed. The evaluation evidence 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 during Rounds 3 to 6. The South West received 167.9million in funding, of which 96 million was between Rounds 3 to 6. Bristol and Plymouth accounted for 36% of the regions most deprived SOAs and received almost 60% of the regions total funding allocation. We received 48 evaluation reports, covering 96% of expenditure. From this evidence we have estimated that the South Wests SRB programme created 1,689 net jobs and safeguarded another 3,496. More than 27,000 people trained through these schemes obtained qualifications and 286 supported businesses survived for one year. Almost 6,000 hectares of land was reclaimed for development and 70 community enterprises were established. Partnership working and community engagement are considered by evaluators and stakeholders to have been noteworthy achievements of the South Wests SRB programme. The programme was felt to be successful at developing and strengthening community ties and is considered to have fostered closer 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 manage and administer a scheme from the outset; it is essential to devise forward strategies in anticipation of the funding regime coming to an end, in order to ensure that alternative arrangements are in place when the funding ends and to facilitate a smooth transition to any successor scheme; key stakeholders and partners must be fully engaged from the outset, to ensure continuing strategic commitment and vision; there must be a sense of realism about what can be achieved within a given timeframe and with
185
the amount of funding that is available; and
programme and scheme management should ensure that the necessary staff are in place as soon as possible, ideally from the outset, to ensure that time and momentum is not lost at the beginning of a programme.
186
10 The impact of SRB in Yorkshire and Humber
Introduction
This section presents the results of our meta-evaluation of the SRB evidence available for the Yorkshire and Humber region. It follows a common approach and methodology, as outlined in Section 4 of this report and includes:

background information on the Yorkshire and Humber 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 based on an assessment of additionality; an assessment of outcomes and impacts; and a consideration of Strategic Added Value.
Overview of the Yorkshire and Humber region

The Yorkshire and Humber region is the fifth largest region in England in terms of land area and comprises 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 diverse urban/rural mix, including the five cities of Bradford, Leeds, York, Sheffield and Hull. It also has a higher than average area of designated green-belt land at 17% of the regions land area, against an overall 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 328 per square kilometre, with the most densely populated area being West Yorkshire at 1,004 per square kilometre. The economy for the region is estimated to be around 82 billion and, since 2001, has been characterised by strong GDP growth which has been higher than the UK as a whole. It is an economy in transition, evolving from a heavy dependence on large scale manufacturing and traditional industries, for example, the region still accounts for around 17% of the UKs power generation capacity and 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 within the region. The region has also experienced declining unemployment rates in recent years and, in 2005, the employment rate was on a par with the UK average at almost 74%. As outlined in Table 3.3, Index of Multiple Deprivation Data from 2004 indicates that 14.1% of the 28 8,120 most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs) in England are in the Yorkshire and Humber region. This represents the third highest figure nationally, with only the North West (21.3%) and London (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
Sub-region Number of SOAs in the sub-region in bottom IMD quartile nationally 189 39 375 543 1146 % of SOAs in the subregion as a whole 18% 15% 26% 42% 100% % of regional total in lowest IMD quartile nationally 16% 3% 33% 47% 100%
Humber North Yorkshire South Yorkshire West Yorkshire Total
West Yorkshire and to a lesser extent South Yorkshire contain a significantly higher proportion of SOAs compared to their Humber and North Yorkshire counterparts. West Yorkshire has three times the proportion of SOAs in the bottom IMD quartile nationally than the region as a whole.
Regional context
Table 10.2 provides an overview of the SRB programme in the region, outlining the number and proportion of schemes that took place in each SRB Round and providing a comparison with the national picture. Table 10.2: Number of SRB schemes in the Yorkshire and Humber Region
SRB Round Number of SRB schemes in the region (% of total schemes in the region) 22 (22%) 15 (15%) 16 (16%) 14 (14%) 14 (14%) 19 (19%) 100 (100%) 63 (63%) Number of SRB schemes nationally (% of total schemes nationally) 201 (20%) 172 (17%) 182 (18%) 121 (12%) 163 (16%) 189 (18%) 1,028 (100%) 655 (64%)
Source: CLG
28
See 5 for more detail on Super Output Areas PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
188
One hundred schemes were funded in Yorkshire and Humber across the six Rounds of SRB. Sixtythree of these schemes were funded through Rounds 3 to 6. The overall proportion of regional schemes in Rounds 3 to 6 is consistent with the national picture and there is little variation in the regional distribution of SRB schemes across the SRB rounds. Round 1 saw the highest number and proportion of schemes in the region, as was the case nationally; Rounds 4 and 5 saw the lowest number and proportion of schemes in the region.
SRB expenditure
Table 10.3 provides an overview of budgeted SRB expenditure per Round in the region, outlining the amount and proportion of expenditure that took place in each SRB Round and again providing a comparison with the national picture. Table 10.3: SRB budgeted expenditure per Round as a proportion of national SRB expenditure SRB Round SRB expenditure (m) % of regions total SRB expenditure
23% 17% 15% 7% 12% 26% 100% 60%

18% 13% 14% 18% 10% 19% 15% 15%
Source: CLG
202.2 151.1 130.6 57.8 108.8 230.2 880.5 527.2
Yorkshire and Humber received 880.5 million of SRB funding across the six rounds, representing 15% of the national total. 527 million of this total was spent in Rounds 3 to 6, representing 15% of the equivalent national figure. There are some interesting variations in the regional and national figures. For instance, whilst Round 4 expenditure only represents 7% of the regional total, it represents nearly one-fifth (18%) of Round 4 expenditure across all regions. Over one-quarter (26%) of regional SRB expenditure occurs in Round 6, representing just under one-fifth of the national expenditure for that Round. Table 10.4 provides a sub-regional breakdown of YFs budgeted expenditure per SRB round. Table 10.4: SRB budgeted expenditure per round, per sub-region (m)
Sub-region Humber North Yorkshire South Yorkshire West Yorkshire Regional/other Total Round 3 21.2 55.8 53.6 130.6 Round 4 11.6 1.1 19.7 25.4 57.8 Round 5 4.5 4.4 43.6 56.3 108.8 Round 6 52.4 11.1 99.8 66.1 0.7 230.1 Totals 89.7 16.6 218.9 201.3 0.7 527.2
189
The significant sub-regional variation continues, with South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire SRB expenditure accounting for the majority (80%) of total regional expenditure across Rounds 3 to 6. Humbers expenditure accounts for 17% of the total, leaving North Yorkshires SRB expenditure accounting 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 Yorkshires expenditure (46%) and a third of West Yorkshires 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. Table 10.5: SRB actual expenditure between 2002-2007
Source: YF
YFs 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 YFs 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 we have evaluated, as some of the spend on projects in Rounds 3 to 6 fell outside the period from 2002/03 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 The meta-evaluation is a largely desk-based review of existing evaluations and other data sources for SRB schemes. We are therefore heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of evaluation evidence we have received from the RDA. Although it was possible to source the majority of evaluation reports for the period in question, this masks a wide variation in the quality of reports and therefore our ability to use the evidence. The variation is extreme, from those that did not provide details of SRB expenditure and/or the outputs generated, to those that provided a commentary on the potential net value of outputs. Table 10.6 outlines the amount of usable evidence we received per SRB Round and indicates the coverage 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 expenditure data, or monitoring data that we were able to check for consistency with other sources.
190
Table 10.6: SRB evaluation evidence received by round

SRB Round Total number of SRB schemes Number of schemes with usable evidence received 14 11 11 9 45 Percentage of schemes for that Round Percentage of Expenditure for that Round Amount of Expenditure for that Round (m)
16 14 14 19 63
88% 79% 79% 47% 71%
66% 93% 79% 35% 58%
85.6 53.7 85.7 80.7 305.6
Source: York Consulting. Expenditure in this table refers to forecast SRB expenditure. Expenditure figures sourced from CLG data.
With the exception of Round 6, the percentage of schemes with usable evidence is good. It should be noted that YF is expecting to receive evaluation reports covering six SRB schemes, representing an additional 133.8 million of SRB expenditure, around the end of this meta-evaluation. In particular, the South Yorkshire Coalfields evaluation report accounts for an additional 112.2 million of Round 5 and 6 combined expenditure. If the evidence contained within these reports is usable (and we believe it will be) this will boost the number of Round 5 and 6 schemes with usable evidence to 13 each. This will increase the percentage of Round 5 schemes with usable evidence to 93%. The comparable figure for Round 6 will increase to 68%. In expenditure terms, Round 5 expenditure will rise to 96% and the Round 6 figure will more than double to 85%. The overall total will increase by to 439.4 million and total percentage covered will increase to 83%. Table 10.7 outlines the amount of evaluation evidence received by size of scheme. Table 10.7: SRB evaluation evidence received by Round and by size of scheme
SRB Round Number of schemes under 1m 1 0 1 4 6 Number of schemes with evaluations received 1 0 0 0 1 Number of schemes 1m - 3m 4 6 7 2 19 Number of schemes with evaluations received 3 5 7 2 17 Number of schemes above 3m 11 8 6 13 38 Number of schemes with evaluations received 10 6 4 7 27
Overall, the profile of evidence received across the four Rounds and for schemes of different sizes is good. The most noticeable gap is for Round 6 schemes with expenditure under 1 million. Sixty percent of schemes are in the above 3 million category, for which we currently have 58% evaluation report coverage. Coverage in this category is affected by the ongoing evaluations that are still to complete. We have assessed the evaluation evidence we have received, to ascertain how much these individual evaluations can tell us about RDAs expenditure, outputs and additionality. Table 10.8 provides an overview of what we have found.
191
Table 10.8: Prevalence of output/expenditure data in evaluation evidence received

SRB Round Total number of evaluations received Evaluations with actual and forecast expenditure included 12 10 5 7 34 Evaluations with gross outputs included 11 10 8 9 38 Evaluations with net outputs included 0 0 0 1 1

14 11 11 9 45
With the exception of Round 5, the majority of evaluation reports have included actual and forecast expenditure. Unfortunately, six of the Round 5 evaluation reports did not include this data. The majority of evaluation reports reviewed reported on the gross outputs delivered by the schemes. The low numbers in the final column means that, with the exception of one report, additionality has not been considered in enough depth at the regional level to help us in our work. This has implications for our work, as it is essential to understand net impact. The limited amount of relevant information on additionality means that we will need to apply the additionality data generated by the national SRB evaluation to YFs gross SRB outputs, in order to estimate the additionality of those schemes and generate net outputs. Although not ideal, this approach has been approved by BERR and the wider RDA impact Steering Group as being the best option available in the circumstances. Further information on this approach can be found in Section 4, which explains the meta-evaluations approach and methodology.
Our review of evaluation evidence has been supplemented by consultations with six key strategic stakeholders in the region. The aim of the stakeholder consultations was to get additional qualitative information about the nature and impact of SRB in the region in effect, to understand some of the nuances that may not be apparent from reading evaluation reports. We spoke to a mixture of people, both internal to YF and amongst external partners, to try to understand more about YFs overall SRB programme and about some of the issues related to the delivery 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 most helpful 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 augmenting the evaluation evidence we have reviewed.
Gross outputs
We have collected gross output data from the evaluation evidence we have reviewed across the sixtythree official SRB output categories. A template was produced (and agreed with all the participating RDAs) for recording the qualitative and quantitative information contained in the evaluation evidence we received. We have also recorded any additional outputs outside the official SRB output categories that were contained in the evaluations we reviewed. This recording template has formed the backbone of our analysis and has allowed us to consider SRB outputs 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 qualitative fields, covering issues such as key outcomes and impacts; partnership working; community engagement; leadership; governance; strategic added value; and programme strengths and weaknesses. This recognition of schemes economic and non-economic objectives, activities and outputs is important in terms of assessing performance. We have separated the sixty-three gross outputs we have 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 SRB outputs that counted towards RDA delivery targets. We have classified these as core RDA outputs for the purposes of this meta-evaluation. Table 10.9 provides an overview of the gross core outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the Yorkshire and Humber Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted SRB 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 271 344 7277 6 10 28 South Yorkshire 9612 2841 29969 277 109 34 West Yorkshire 3796 3282 19922 232 199 97 Total 16,077 8,754 71,600 712 353 204
2398 2287 14432 197 35 45
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 output categories, especially in relation to the number of people trained gaining qualifications, which makes up 73% of the total outputs recorded. There are also significant totals for the number of jobs created and number of jobs safeguarded across the region. South Yorkshire was the strongest performing sub-region, accounting for 42% of the people trained output and 60% of the jobs created output. The New Deal for Barnsley Round 4 scheme produced a number of significant core RDA outputs, including 4,974 jobs created, 1,694 jobs safeguarded and 13,586 people trained obtaining qualifications. The New York Riverside scheme focused in Rotherham 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 the total) and 28% of the people trained total. The Platform for Change Round 5 scheme created 1,071 jobs in Huddersfield and the Facing the Challenge Round 3 scheme safeguarded just under 1,000 jobs in Manningham and Girlington, Bradford. The Foundations for a Competitive Economy Round 3 scheme based in Wakefield contributed significantly (5,067) to the people trained obtaining qualifications total.
193
Other economic outputs Of the remaining 57 outputs, we have categorised 23 as other economic outputs outputs that have a distinct economic focus to them, but which are not included in the RDAs core outputs. Table 10.10 provides an overview of the gross other economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the Yorkshire and Humber Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for 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 North Yorkshire
17140 18087
South Yorkshire
42361 144125
West Yorkshire
199606 89100
Total
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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 startups 2B (i) Business/commercial 2 floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial 2) floorspace (m 2C (i) New businesses supported
28847 88949
287,954 340,261
1598
563
8010
8379
18,550
70073 826 3122 467 140 446 86239
27414 369 185 12 0 138 29818
70077 5563 4029 1279 125 748 210889
189961 2288 1473 583 268 238 242715
357,525 9,046 8,809 2,341 533 1570 569,661
493
570
1952
1442
4,457
19133 105 549 20596 62254 272
672 2 42 2601 6199 23
33341 203 2200 160539 29850 398
15438 206 533 66496 60629 678
68,584 516 3,324 250,232 158,932 1,371
194
Output category
Humber
North Yorkshire
9 1760
South Yorkshire
282 3799
West Yorkshire
135 9226
Total
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)
162 3946
588 18,731
645 138 2 113
7188 120 1 0
170 102 8 5
426 304 1 17
8,429 664 12 135
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 to promote personal and social development, with over half a million (569,661) outputs recorded. Fourfifths of this total was the result of schemes in South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Schemes contributing 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 in Bradford. The number of training weeks output is also significant (357,525). Over half (53%) of this figure was delivered by schemes in West Yorkshire, including a significant (72,385) input made by the Platform for Change scheme in Huddersfield. Humber and South Yorkshire each contributed 20% of the total number of training weeks. SRB schemes in South Yorkshire contributed 42% of the 340,261 pupils benefiting from projects to improve attainment, most notably 95,120 from the New Deal for Barnsley scheme. A further 52% of this 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 of construction jobs, providing 69% of these outputs. The Platform for Change scheme in Huddersfield contributed 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 / commercial floorspace 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 total of 12 kilometres recorded across the region, whereas schemes in Humber contributed 113 kilometres (84%) of the total for kilometres of roads improved (135 km). Other non-economic outputs This leaves a collection of thirty-four diverse outputs, which we have categorised as being other noneconomic outputs. The range of outputs covered here is an illustration of the varying non-economic motives behind many SRB schemes. Table 10.11 provides an overview of the gross other non-economic outputs achieved by SRB schemes in the Yorkshire and Humber Region. These outputs reflect the activities of SRB schemes which account for budgeted SRB expenditure of 306 million, or 58% of the budgeted 527 million SRB spend.
195
Table 10.11: Gross other non-economic outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region
Output category Humber North Yorkshire 0 31 20 183 0 19 0 6203 56205 300 692 33 186 215 1441 3 4 2000 3900 14930 6 28 52 South Yorkshire 40 1682 0 1351 66 0 0 232122 11379 31737 13717 1146 573 931 25077 9 21 53685 82150 123752 22 21 25 West Yorkshire 357 1782 0 2732 44 313 40 262367 11664 32706 21485 812 1152 2150 77229 16 45 142680 75063 309480 347 73 194 Total 479 4,176 20 5,031 129 387 40 874,216 182,607 120,139 41,950 2,493 2,437 3,903 135,437 30 135 224,784 174,771 2,370,426 383 287 318
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
196
82 681 0 765 19 55 0 373524 103359 55396 6056 502 526 607 31690 2 65 26419 13658 1922264 8 165 47
Output category
Humber
North Yorkshire 2500 2444 15151 0 0 50 1194 808 2339 0 140
South Yorkshire 50483 52313 80600 230 18 117 3458 2766 15561 59 2532
West Yorkshire 20165 25811 80288 209 119 245 3238 3496 14664 5 4902
Total 77,528 90,670 1,163,183 443 288 451 9,182 8,816 39,113 105 8,473
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
4380 10102 987144 4 151 39 1292 1746 6549 41 899
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 the provision of health, sporting and cultural facilities. The total number of people benefiting from community safety initiatives was 874,216, with the River Hull Corridor Round 3 scheme in Hull contributing 43% of this total. A fifth of this total were people aged over 60 and 14% were female. Over 135,000 people attended crime prevention initiatives, 57% of whom resided in West Yorkshire, of which just under 60,000 was shared equally between the Manningham and Girlington and Newlands schemes in Bradford. Nearly 4,000 youth crime prevention initiatives were established, over half of which (55%) were also in West Yorkshire. Nearly 42,000 dwellings benefited from upgraded security, over half of which (51%) were in West Yorkshire. One-quarter of these outputs were a result of activities delivered by the Better Neighbourhoods & Confident Communities Round 5 scheme in Leeds. Just under 2,500 commercial buildings had their security upgraded (47% in West Yorkshire). The non-economic outputs related to establishing new health, sporting and cultural facilities, having access 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 Hull Corridor scheme in Hull. Just over one million people used these facilities (85% from Humber). Just fewer than 225,000 people had access to new health facilities and 77,528 people used these facilities. The access to health facilities was more prevalent in West Yorkshire (63%), predominantly through the Better Neighbourhoods & Confident Communities scheme in Leeds. The use of health facilities was more dominant in South Yorkshire (65%).
197
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 West Yorkshire (43%), whereas the usage of facilities was more prevalent in schemes in South Yorkshire (58%).

Table 10.12 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of core RDA outputs. Table 10.12: Actual versus forecast performance for core RDA outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region
Output category Number of jobs created Number of jobs safeguarded Number of people trained obtaining qualifications New businesses supported surviving 52 weeks Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha) Number of community enterprise start ups
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 the number of jobs safeguarded and number of new businesses surviving 52 weeks, where targets were exceeded by nearly 100% in both cases. Table 10.13 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other economic outputs. Table 10.13: Actual versus forecast performance for other economic outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region
Output category 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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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
198
Regional performance 149% 137% 130% 114% 56% 114% 145% 125% 128% 264% 145% 110%
Output category 1L (i) Number of teachers in target area on placement into business 2A Number of new business start-ups 2B (i) Business/commercial floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial floorspace (m ) 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)
2 2
Regional performance 103% 157% 129% 133% 150% 257% 234% 60% 163% 121% 774%
There are only two areas where targets were not met the target for the number of people trained gaining jobs has been undershot by nearly half (44%) and the area of land improved/reclaimed for open space has only met 60% of its target. Particularly strong performance was achieved against the target for road improvements, where the original forecast was exceeded by 674%. The forecast for business surviving 78 weeks was exceeded by a factor of 2.5 and the forecast for the number of businesses receiving advice through SRB-assisted activities was exceeded by 134%. The forecast for the number of young people benefiting from projects to promote personal and social development was exceeded by a factor of 2.6. Table 10.14 provides an indication of how SRB schemes performed in comparison to their forecast impact, in respect of other non-economic outputs. Table 10.14: Actual versus forecast non-economic outputs
Output category 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 Regional performance 150% 141% n/a 62% 125% 128% 200% 180% 118% 76% 230% 83% 227% 210%
199
Output category 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
Regional performance 247% 167% 422% 219% 199% 142% 467% 192% 168% 391% 300% 485% 963% 777% 265% 214% 303% 185% 59% 179%
There were four areas of underperformance against the non-economic targets. These were: the number of employee volunteering schemes (59% achieved); the number of local authority dwellings improved (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 was exceeded 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 these facilities may be open to scrutiny, as these forecasts were exceeded by a factor of just under 4 (using improved health facilities), a factor of 3 (using improved sports facilities) and a factor of 4.85 (using improved cultural facilities). Other areas of strong performance include the forecast for the number of waste management and recycling schemes, which was exceeded by a factor of 4, and the forecast for the number of community organisations being supported, which was exceeded by a factor of 3.
200

Net outputs
Core RDA outputs Applying the additionality coefficients to YFs gross core RDA outputs (as listed earlier) provides a view of the net core RDA outputs for the Yorkshire and Humber Region SRB programme, as illustrated in Table 10.15. Table 10.15: Net core RDA outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region Output category Humber North Yorkshire
111 148 4075 3 5 22
South Yorkshire
3941 1222 16783 122 53 27
West Yorkshire
1556 1411 11156 102 98 76
Total
983 983 8082 87 17 35
6,592 3,764 40,096 313 173 159
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 jobs safeguarded remain the key core outputs. Schemes in South Yorkshire and, to a lesser extent, West Yorkshire have made the greatest contribution. Other economic outputs Table 10.16 provides an overview of the other net economic outputs achieved by the SRB programme in the Yorkshire and Humber Region. Table 10.16: Net other economic outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region
Output category Humber North Yorkshire South Yorkshire West Yorkshire Total
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 of people trained gaining jobs 1F (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1G Number entering self employment 1G (ii) Who were formerly unemployed 1I (i) Number from disadvantaged groups targeted who gain job 1J Number 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) Business/commercial 2 floorspace improved (m ) 2B (ii) New business/commercial 2 floorspace (m ) 2C (i) New businesses supported 2C (iii) Surviving 78 weeks 2D Number of businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB-assisted activities
12116 47143 991 25226 413 1499 266 78 272
7199 9586 349 9869 185 89 7 0 84
17792 76386 4966 25228 2782 1934 729 70 456
83835 47223 5195 68386 1144 707 332 150 145
120,941 180,338 11,501 128,709 4,523 4,228 1,334 298 958
40532
14014
99118
114076
267,741
296 9375 64 231 7415 28014 120 75
342 329 1 18 936 2790 10 4
1171 16337 124 924 57794 13433 175 130
865 7565 126 224 23939 27283 298 62
2,674 33,606 315 1,396 90,084 71,519 603 270
1697
757
1634
3967
8,054
202
Output category
Humber
North Yorkshire
South Yorkshire
West Yorkshire
Total
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)
490 73 1 85
5463 64 1 0
129 54 4 4
324 161 1 13
6,406 352 6 101
The relative strengths and sub-regional performance for the net other economic outputs remains the same as reported for the gross outputs presented in Table 10.10. However, the gross to net adjustment for the number of training weeks has been greater than the adjustment for the number of pupils benefiting from projects to improve attainment, resulting in the latter overtaking the former and claiming second position in net numerical terms. Other non-economic outputs Table 10.17 provides an overview of the net other non-economic outputs achieved by the SRB programme in the Yorkshire and Humber Region. Table 10.17: Net other non-economic outputs in the Yorkshire and Humber Region
Output category 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
203
Humber
North Yorkshire 0 15 0 92 0 10 0 3226 27540 141 339 18 95 116
South Yorkshire 17 791 0 676 30 0 0 120703 5576 14916 6721 642 292 503
West Yorkshire 150 838 0 1366 20 157 26 136431 5715 15372 10528 455 588 1161
Total
34 320 0 383 9 28 0 194232 50646 26036 2967 281 268 328
201 1,963 0 2,516 58 194 26 454,592 89,477 56,465 20,556 1,396 1,243 2,108
Output category
Humber
North Yorkshire
South Yorkshire
West Yorkshire
Total
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
22183 1 49 16644 8331 1268694 5 102 32 2759 4950 473829 2 91 19 801 1152 3733 27 450
1009 1 3 1260 2379 9854 4 17 35 1575 1198 7272 0 0 25 740 533 1333 0 70
17554 4 16 33822 50112 81676 14 13 17 31804 25633 38688 115 11 57 2144 1826 8870 38 1266
54060 8 34 89888 45788 204257 226 45 132 12704 12647 38538 105 71 120 2008 2307 8358 3 2451
94,806 14 103 141,614 106,610 1,564,481 249 178 216 48,843 44,428 558,328 222 173 221 5,693 5,819 22,294 68 4,237
The gross to net adjustment for other non-economic outputs has not resulted in any significant changes to the commentary on the gross figures presented in Table 12.9. The only minor change has been in the relative order of the numerical outputs, with the outputs for access to new sports facilities moving 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, materials etc.) led to a wide range of activities being undertaken, which in turn resulted in outputs, which led to demonstrable economic, social and community-oriented outcomes. The stakeholders we consulted stressed that, whilst the majority of SRB schemes sought to address the same multiple objectives, the schemes themselves were so different in terms of their geographical focus, community composition and economic starting point that any attempt to generalise the conclusions would be unhelpful. However, it is possible to see how the focus of different Rounds of SRB has sought to deliver different outcomes. Eight schemes addressed single themes and, in the majority of cases, it has been easier to determine the impact of these schemes compared to their multi-objective counterparts. Four of these schemes were focused on the educational achievement, training and employment prospects and social development of young people. Although the geographic focus was different, these four schemes each covered SRB Rounds 3 to 6. Two schemes focused on softer objectives one of these concentrated on community capacity building and the other had a single objective of promoting a positive attitude to learning. The final two schemes with a single-theme objective focused on employability one programme targeted a particular geographic area and the other, a relatively small scheme, focused on female offenders. The focus for Round 3 was largely about tackling unemployment, raising educational attainment and tackling crime. A number of evaluations we reviewed were able to demonstrate how from a baseline position, unemployment rates had fallen in the SRB area, educational attainment had improved and either crime rates or anti-social behaviour had been reduced. Attributing this impact solely to SRB investment, schemes and activities has been more problematic against a backdrop of an increasingly positive national economic situation. However, some evaluators have shown how some of the rates of change have outstripped regional or national averages. SRB Round 4 built on the Round 3 objectives, with an added focus on encouraging community engagement. Consequently, commentary on the harder economic impact indicators around job creation, reducing unemployment and increasing skills development are recorded alongside softer impact measures such as the development of community networks and community infrastructure. It also became clear, that for some communities, although outputs had been generated and progress had 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 capacity building, i.e. moving on from the community engagement focus of Round 4 to encouraging community ownership and delivery of projects within individual schemes. Therefore, there was more focus on community safety initiatives and on establishing and/or improving health, sporting and cultural activities. The impacts that have been noted are therefore less focused on economic outcomes and more concentrated on social and community benefits. These include demonstrating that crime and reoffending rates were falling, the positive effects of environmental improvements and the degree to which 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 leverage had been generated. Where positive economic outcomes had been noted, these outcomes should be considered against a backdrop of increasing national economic prosperity at the time. Although the majority of schemes addressed multiple themes, there are important sub-regional differences. A number of schemes in Humber and North Yorkshire had objectives connected with addressing the rural/urban divide. Both these sub-regions also had schemes with specific projects focused on increasing agriculture diversification. One of the largest schemes in South Yorkshire was focused on addressing issues associated with the formal coalfield areas.
205

With the exception of one scheme, partnership and inter-agency working has been described as a key strength of the SRB programme in the region. There are examples of project managers working across projects to provide support when this was required. Partnership teams were considered to have been proactive in developing positive working relationships to ensure that the relevant agencies were engaged. Particularly effective partnership arrangements were developed between Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham SRB teams, which enabled them to deliver over 600 individual projects across the former South Yorkshire coalfield areas.

On the whole, the evaluation evidence we have reviewed appears to indicate that programme management was effective. Some evaluations emphasised the point that the role of the programme manager was to drive projects forward and lead, rather than to administer funding and monitor outputs. The majority of schemes had a similar governance structure that included an overall Programme Board, supported by sub or theme-groups to focus on discrete activities alongside a Programme or Partnership Team. Some schemes 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 was sometimes difficult. In some cases the seats for community or private sector representatives were unfilled 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 and management. Often attendance at Partnership Boards waned towards the end of schemes. This was thought to be because the majority of funding had been allocated and the key projects had been through the appraisal process and were up and running. The second issue is in relation to temporary contracts. A number of schemes had at least two programme managers in their lifetime, which caused continuity issues. This also caused issues between successive SRB programme Rounds, in that lessons were not necessarily learnt and passed on.
Overall, community engagement has been a strength across the SRB programme in the region. This appears to especially be the case for Rounds 4 and 5. Evaluators and stakeholders agree that community engagement increased over the course of individual schemes and the SRB programme as a whole, developing from an initial focus on providing information through to real capacity building within individual communities. There are isolated examples where consultation with the community was seen as weak, either because of a lack of representation via governance arrangements, a lack of breadth of engagement beyond local councillors or a lack of knowledge and experience regarding community consultation techniques. Effective practice identified includes the establishment of a community panel or community focus groups, encouraging community representatives to develop a Community Investment Prospectus and the Community Chest arrangements that were developed by a number of schemes as a mechanism to pump-prime community-managed project activities.
206
Strategic impact
The SRB investment was an effective catalyst for a wide range of post-SRB regional activity. The community engagement aspect and geographical focus was a key strength of the schemes. YF was at the forefront of SRB programme activity, especially in relation to SRB Rounds 5 and 6, by setting the strategic 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 working in partnership with local authorities across the region is becoming increasingly prescient, due to the implications of the Sub-National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration (SNR). YF is in a 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 much investment 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 different funding 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 problematic and this is potentially a missed opportunity. As we have already mentioned, there was an increasing focus on community engagement as the SRB programme progressed. Despite a significant amount of private sector leverage having been generated, effective engagement of private sector partners in the SRB process appears to have been difficult. Table 10.18: Leverage in the Yorkshire and Humber Region (m)
SRB Round SRB spend Private sector funding 51.7 30.1 50.6 145.1 277.5 Public sector funding 102.2 118.2 79.9 105.4 405.7 Leverage ratio

Source: YF evaluation evidence
86.9 34.5 49.3 58.8 229.5
1 : 1.80 1 : 4.30 1 : 2.60 1 : 4.30 1 : 3.00
There are mixed perceptions regarding the legacy left by the SRB programme in the region. Some stakeholders commented that some programme and project managers were nave in not addressing sustainability issues until near the end of schemes, resulting in an inability to sustain or embed project activity beyond the SRB funding timeframe. Other stakeholders point to examples where SRB activity led to the formation of Development Trusts, Community Associations and Community Interest Companies and noted an increased capacity and ability of the Third Sector to effectively deliver community services. Continuation of project activity was more likely where SRB left a physical legacy and 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, or where continuation funding was secured. Some schemes were fortunate in that delivery of their projects coincided with policy developments that led to a natural mainstreaming of activity.
207
Value for money


The strengths and weaknesses identified by evaluators and stakeholders tend to be scheme-specific and often include the identification of a particular theme or project. However, there are some common features across the four SRB Rounds that can be drawn out. The three most common strengths identified have been achievement/over achievement of output forecasts (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 in geographical terms or in relation to having too many themes or objectives. Whilst it is admirable for schemes 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 either partially or largely successful. This view stems from the achievement, and in some cases, substantial overachievement of RDA core, other economic and other non-economic outputs, with underperformance 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 in the region. This suggests that funding was effectively targeted at the sub-regions with the highest number of most deprived Super Output Areas (SOAs). When leverage is factored in, there were eight schemes that invested over 40 million each within the region. The largest two schemes, Regen 2000 in Bradford and Aire Valley in Leeds, were worth just under a quarter of a billion pounds. A substantial number of outputs were delivered by a relatively small number of large schemes. The SRB Round 3 programme was largely focused on large-scale capital projects. Subsequent programmes focused more on engaging communities, culminating in the focus on capacity building within communities in Round 5. The final programme (Round 6) focused on delivering core RDA outputs. With minor exceptions, partnership development, community development, governance and programme management were considered by evaluators and stakeholders to have been effective. Whilst the views regarding the sustainability of SRB schemes were more mixed, SRB investment acted as a catalyst for a wide range of post-SRB activity.
208
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 3 to 6 across six regions. Wherever possible we have reviewed final evaluations; where this was not possible we have reviewed other available evidence, such as interim evaluations, draft final evaluations, programme reviews and monitoring and output data. We have reviewed evaluation evidence covering 60% of schemes in SRB Rounds 3 to 6 and 67% of SRB Rounds 3 to 6 expenditure. This final section pulls together some conclusions, themes and messages from the evaluation evidence 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, by reducing 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 poorer neighbourhoods. SRB schemes have delivered a wide range of economic 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 in the evidence that we reviewed, with targets largely being achieved. However, we have recorded some wide variations in performance to target. Some of the evaluations themselves noted the difficulties that partnerships encountered in setting meaningful targets across so many categories and in sometimes recording outputs accurately. We have not sought 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 that correspond most closely to RDAs core outputs. As a result, the SRB programme created or safeguarded 145,000 gross and over 60,000 net jobs across the six regions. In net terms, around 150,000 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 900 community enterprises were established. The scale of these outputs is apparent when they are set alongside the RDAs core (gross) outputs between 2002/03 and 2006/07. Although there are limitations associated with the comparison, the evidence shows the significant role that SRB played in helping RDAs meet some of their core output targets. For example, the six RDAs created or safeguarded just over 300,000 jobs between 2002/03 and 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 other public 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 1,044 million of private sector funding and 1,654 million of public sector funding. This means that every 1 of SRB spending levered in an additional 2.63 of funding from public and private sources. Whilst the leveraged public sector funds may well have been spent anyway, the SRB programme meant that this money 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 way which is consistent with the requirements of the Impact Evaluation Framework (IEF) has been a challenge for several important reasons. First, many of the evaluations reviewed referred to the lack of baseline data from which it would be possible to judge impact. We have been totally dependent on the quality and quantity of the evaluation evidence we have received. In practice, the evaluation evidence has proven to be consistently poor when assessed against the principles contained within the IEF, although we recognise that these principles were defined well after the schemes started only a very small number of evaluations have considered additionality, net outputs and overall outcomes, and the vast majority have 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 series of local evaluations, without having the necessary information that would enable us to assess regionallevel factors such as intra-regional displacement. Despite these challenges, some key themes around impact have emerged from the evidence we have reviewed. Some reports noted an increase in the self-confidence, self-esteem and skills base of the individuals who participated in SRB projects; others reported an increased awareness of policing issues, a reduced fear of crime and increased feelings of community safety. Other impacts recorded across the localities included an increase in those attending full-time education; a reduction in instances of domestic abuse; increased youth participation in sporting activities; reduced unemployment 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 notable impact on communities. This suggests that the difference that communities will have felt from the creation of many thousands of jobs, from the businesses that were supported, the people that were trained, the houses that were built or improved, the community facilities that were built, the land that was reclaimed, the crime and safety initiatives that took place and the areas that were regenerated is likely to have been significant. Given the absence of wider evidence, it is difficult to say much more about the difference that the SRB programme has made because the evaluation evidence alone is generally too weak. Even those reports which sought to link SRB outputs to wider socio-economic trends 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. SRB schemes were set up to achieve a variety of objectives, some of which were economic but many of which were not. In order to undertake a meaningful assessment of value for money, it is important to recognise 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 to particular elements of expenditure, not least because expenditure that went towards achieving economic objectives sometimes also went towards achieving environmental or social objectives. This
means we cannot compare economic outputs with the expenditure responsible for generating these outputs because the evaluation evidence we have seen does not provide the basis for such an analysis. Without this data we are not able to compare inputs (expenditure) with the relevant outputs on a disaggregated basis. The alternative would be to compare overall bundles of expenditure at the individual programme level with bundles of programme outputs. In practice, however, it is difficult to express the social and environmental outputs of SRB schemes in terms of incremental value added. Consequently, we believe that it would also be potentially inappropriate and misleading to seek to assess value for money of SRB at an aggregate level. We have, therefore, not undertaken a value for money calculation across the SRB programme.
Delivery approach
A central tenet of SRBs delivery approach was the development of local partnerships which were able to develop schemes specifically tailored to local circumstances. This devolution of responsibility for administering funds to local partnerships allowed for a more flexible and innovative approach to local level regeneration. Partnerships had successes and failures, as did schemes themselves. Where partnerships worked well there was often an appropriate balance of public, private and community representation on partnership boards. Even when partnerships were successful, there was often a time delay before the partnership worked effectively. Many partnerships took time and resources to establish and often endured a challenging start before maturing into competent oversight bodies. Getting partnerships to survive the duration of the scheme also appears to have been a challenge many evaluations refer to the waning enthusiasm of some board members once key scheme decisions had been made. In many cases partnerships were set up specifically to bid for and administer SRB funding. How many partnerships survived post-SRB is unknown. Where partnerships were not so successful, there were often difficulties in getting the formal structures functioning smoothly and in getting the balance of participation right. Engaging with the private sector was a consistent challenge for partnerships the reported bureaucracy of SRB processes may not have helped in this regard and there was a tendency for partnerships to be dominated by public and voluntary sector groups. SRB funded a huge variety of projects, from very small-scale training programmes through to major urban regeneration projects. This approach proved to be both a strength and a weakness. On the one 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 the differing quality of much of the evaluation evidence we reviewed, the effectiveness of the approach to performance management is also questionable. It appears from the evaluation evidence that a lot of time 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 emphasis on counting so many outputs appears to have detracted from a widespread, meaningful consideration of outcomes. Many evaluations refer to the lack of baseline data with which to judge the impacts of schemes. Although it is interesting and useful to have so much output data, it is only when it is placed in the context of outcomes and impacts that the data is really valuable. The absence of emphasis on monitoring 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 also impacted significantly on this meta-evaluation as most SRB schemes focused heavily on delivering their gross outputs instead of monitoring outcomes and impacts, so our meta-evaluation, which reflects the evaluation evidence we have received, is able to say very considerably more on outputs than it can about outcomes or impacts.
Mainstreaming and legacy

Understanding the legacy of SRB within the context of this work has been difficult. Final evaluation reports were normally completed before schemes were completed, and there was little evidence on the 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 during the lifetime of the programme. However, the extent to which it was able to genuinely bend mainstream funding sources on a permanent basis is less clear. There was evidence that SRB had funded successful projects, which had influenced the way mainstream 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 be scaled up to a wider geography. It is, therefore, difficult to know if and how non-SRB areas have benefited from SRB schemes. In terms of delivery mechanisms, we do not know how many partnerships survived post-SRB and for how long. The evaluation evidence suggested that some partnerships were set to continue and evolve at their schemes end, by becoming stand-alone entities that could provide a strategic lead for the locations regeneration activities. However, other evaluations noted that some partnerships did not contemplate an existence beyond SRB until the scheme was approaching its end, when both time and resources were short. Despite some notable exceptions, there appears to be limited evidence of the mainstreaming of SRB projects on the whole. This is not entirely surprising, given that mainstreaming was not a core objective of SRB.
Conclusions
With so many schemes over 1,000 in total, and almost 500 across the six participating RDAs in Rounds 3 to 6 there are bound to have been successes and failures. The evidence we have reviewed suggests that many of the SRB schemes that were deemed by evaluators to have been successful were considered to be meeting specific needs, were delivered in a coherent and cohesive way, had good project appraisal processes, had strong and committed leadership and had an effective Board containing active and representative participation from relevant sectors of the community. Where schemes didnt work so well, the evidence suggests that a variety of reasons contributed to those difficulties. These include: recruitment difficulties and a lack of staff continuity; a lack of training to help Board members understand and discharge their duties effectively; a failure to attract or retain representative involvement from all sections of the community, especially the private sector; a failure to engage with the section(s) of the community that the scheme was set up to benefit; a geographical focus that was too wide; and difficulties in balancing the aims and objectives of different interest groups in the partnership. Some of the lessons from SRB have no doubt already been learnt, given the time that has elapsed since many SRB schemes ended. The amount that we can say about the success or otherwise of schemes 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 the need to ensure that projects are focused, appropriately structured, achieve buy-in from relevant sectors 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 of elapsed time or of subsequent developments in national or regional policy.
213
Appendix A Complete list of Rounds 3-6 SRB schemes in participating RDAs
SRB Scheme
Bedford - Cauldwell & Kingsbrook Regeneration Herts Youth Life Chances Kirkley Regeneration Initiative, Lowestoft Peterborough - Ethnic Minorities Housing Advisor Regenerating West Thetford Suffolk Prosper Tilbury Port Watford & SW Herts Partnership Group Working Communities Partnership - Shoeburyness, Southend Bexley: Investing in Belvedere Bow Back Rivers Development Stately Bridging the Gap, Redbridge Challenging Racial Harassment in Newham Children In The City Cross River Partnership 1996 Crystal Palace - Restoring The Vision Delivering London TECS' Inward Investment Offer Education and Employability in East London Feltham: From Legacy to Opportunity Fieldway: Partnerships For The Future, Croydon Funk - Fighting Unemployment In N. Kensington Green Networks: A West London Pilot Hackney Wick Regeneration Haggerston Partnership: Connecting Regeneration Haringey Heartlands Inner London: Job Creation Programme Kings Cross Youth Club Partnership Lambeth and Southwark: Working for Offenders Lambeth and Tower Hamlets: Mobile Arts and Technology
214
Region
Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London
Round
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Project Lambeth: Roots and Shoots Environmental Partnership Lewisham: Bridging the Gap London's Canals And River Corridors Merton: Pollards Hill Estate Newham: Health Fit For Work North & East London Waste Minimisation Project North Kensington: Community Resistance Against Substance Harm NW London Refugee Employment & Training Agency Once in 1000 Years: Opportunities in Greenwich Reading Recovery In Hillingdon Regenerating Western Park Royal Regeneration for Bromley By Bow Skills For The Millennium in Thames Gateway South London Manufacturing Challenge Southall Regeneration Partnership Southwark: Chaucer Community Regeneration Project Southwark: London's Larder Stockley Park Transport Hub Stratford: A Strategy For Schools Trafalgar Square 2000 Unlocking London's Potential Virtual Learning And Access Community Wandsworth Housing Association: Shortlife "Plus" (Pilot Initiative) Wandsworth Town - A New Urban Centre West Euston West London Information & Communications West Of The Borough - LB Tower Hamlets White City Regeneration Building People's Potential for Today and Tomorrow, Macclesfield Burnley - Dordrecht Initiative Bury - Developing The Leading Edge Crime Prevention : Stepping Out Dismantling Barriers For Black And Ethnic Minority Communities - Progress Trust - Manchester East Lancashire Partnership Facing The Future Together - Farnworth/Little Hulton Focus On Fleetwood Granby / Toxteth Jobs & Enterprise Greater Deepdale Regeneration - Preston Greater Manchester Drug Action Partnership London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
215
Guided Steps to Lifetime Learning Heart of the Port - Ellesmere Port Higher Skills For Business In The Market Place - Stockport Interest Rate Rebate Scheme Investing in Tomorrow's Citizens - Wigan Lancashire Tourism Partnership Liverpool East Manchester City Council - Stockport Road Corridor Initiative Manchester City Council - The Wythenshawe Initiative Manchester TEC LTD - 14-19 Youth Strategy In The TEC Area Merseyside: New Solutions, Further Actions Merseyside: Reach Out To Parents Netherley Valley New Wallasey People To The Fore - Regeneration of Glodwick Regeneration In West Chester Salterbeck Community Regeneration - Workington Allerdale Skelmersdale Southport The Crewe Challenge Towards A Learning Community - Hattersley, Tameside ADUR Industry First Barton Community Regeneration Believing In Folkestone Building For The Future In The Thames Valley Castlefield Challenge Community Development, Thanington Competing For Jobs And People, Hastings East Reading Area Partnership Education Achievement Programme - Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Facing the Future: Thanet's Regeneration Agenda Former East Kent Coalfield Littlehampton 2000 Medway Ruler North West Kent Training & Job Link Regenerating Brighton And Hove Slough New Generation The Sheerwater and Maybury Partnership West Reading Black Community Development Project Wolverton Works Bridging the Gap, South Gloucestershire and Bristol
216
North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South West
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cheltenham: ST. Pauls (Lower High St) Renewal Area Northern ARC, Bristol Norton/Radstock, Somerset: Rural Regeneration Plymouth Turning the Tide Restormel, Cornwall : Community Housing Employment Environment Regeneration Scheme, (CHEERS) Rural Action For The Development of Information, Communication, Advice and Learning (RADICAL), North Cornwall Smart Isles West, Region Wide Swindon: Building On Success Tidworth Community Regeneration, Wiltshire Torridge & North Devon : Young People Weston-Super-Mare : Unlocking Potential Weymouth: Waterside Regeneration Yeovil : Stepping Towards Enterprise Back On Track Barton Upon Humber Regeneration Building A Better Bridlington Building On Achievement, Dearne Valley Partnership Building Sustainable Business And Communities, Doncaster Building The Future- Investing In Youth Dalton, Rawthorpe & Moldgreen, Huddersfield Foundations For A Competitive Economy Highway To Success, Barnsley Newlands Integrated Regeneration Strategy Partnership With Young People, Leeds River Hull Corridor, Phase 1 : Heartlands Sheffield, Manor And Castle The Sowerby Bridge West Yorkshire Community Work Training Group Young People: Sharing Rotherham's Future Building on the Foundations, Kings Lynn Learning City, Norwich Enhance, Shoeburyness Regeneration through Youth, Harlow Luton Dunstable Borehamwood Regenerating Heritage Coast, Suffolk A Leadership Centre for London Aylesbury Plus Initiative, Southwark Building a Future in North West London Building on Excellence, Westminster City Fringe Phase 2 - Bridging the Gap
South West South West South West South West South West
3 3 3 3 3
South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire And The Humber Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region London London London London London
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
217
Coin Street Centre, Lambeth and Southwark Community Safety Dimension for Thames Gateway Digital Learning Ring East Battersea Power House Focus Central London: Trading Places Futures Gateway, Islington and Hackney Keys to Learning, Lambeth Lea Side, Tower Hamlets London East TEC: London Accord Missing Links: Finsbury Park Community Trust Newham and Waltham Forest Realising the Potential of North Southwark Safe in the City Take Another Look at Abbey Wood and Thamesmead Tomorrow's City, Stratford Tottenham Futures Young People, Drugs & Crime: Camden & Islington Halewood A Partnership for Change, Knowsley New Opportunities on Wirral Primary Step, Liverpool Parr Partnership, St Helens Sustainable Development & Employment Opportunities Expanding Horizons, Merseyside Brinnington Community 2000, Stockport Eastlink, Manchester and Tameside Greater Manchester Probation Service Kick Start for Jobs, Pendle Opportunities for Excellence, Wigan Partington/Carrington, Trafford Positively Raffles, Carlisle Realising the Benefits, Halton Regeneration of Maryport, Allerdale River Valleys Action, Manchester and Cheshire The Learning Town, Bolton The TREE Project, Warrington Welfare to Green Work, Manchester and Cheshire Welfare to Work Plus, Oldham Winsford into Work, Vale Royal A Catalyst for Business and Skills Growth, Bexhill Believing in Folkestone Early Years Intervention, Oxford and Slough East Reading Partnership Isle of Wight
218
London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West South East South East South East South East South East
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Kent Initiative On Drugs North Kent Gateway to Opportunity Partnership for Youth, Oxford People at the Centre of Slough Regenerating Brighton and Hove Tackling Racial Harassment in Oxford Thanet Talent Towards a Safer Community, Hastings Well Spent Youth, Portsmouth & Havant Barnstaple Dorset Country Towns HOPE for Youth in Exeter Pivotal Crime Points Drugs Initiative, Gloucestershire Plymouth 2000 Promoting Real Opportunities by Mentoring in Somerset Regeneration of Gloucestershire Market Towns Taunton East Action The West Cornwall Employment Programme Youth Owning Urban Regeneration, Bristol A New Deal for Barnsley Building on the Foundations, Goole Community Regeneration Partnerships, Sheffield Facing the Challenge, Bradford Fresh Aire, Wakefield Investing in the Community, Leeds Learning Youth and Using our Abilities, Hull New York Riverside, Rotherham Opportunities for All, Dearne Valley Regeneration of the Catterick Garrison Communities Routes to Employment in North Halifax The Filey Bay Regeneration Initiative Valuing Education, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes Westcliff & Riddings Regeneration, Scunthorpe A Brighter Future for East Colchester A Neighbour Regeneration Strategy for Stevenage Cobholm & Lichfield Community Partnership, Great Yarmouth Community and Voluntary Forum for the Eastern Region Crossbow 1, Southend on Sea Regenerating Regenerating Communities in Bedford Core South Ockendon Regeneration Training Education Delivery Suffolk Market Towns Regeneration
South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
219
Tilbury PORT II Wisbech Champions Partnership A New Future for Finsbury Park Action Acton: From the Margins to the Mainstream Bridging The Divides Bridging the Gap Building Sustainable Communities: Forest Gate and Plaistow Changing Practices: North West London TEC Connecting Communities Connecting Stockwell Co-ordinating the Millennium in London Cray Valley Regeneration Cross River Communities Downham Pride: Aiming Higher for Downham East London & Lee Valley Pathways Development Project Elephant Links Engineering a Competitive Future at the Heart of Thames Gateway Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Capacity Building Programme From Dependency to Work, Pan-London Getting London Working Growing Involvement Isle of Dogs Confident Communities Programme Its Not Your Skills.......Its Your Attitude LOuverture - Widening Participation in Education and Learning London Credit Union Support Programme London New Business Creation Mile End Park New Commitment to Kilburn New Horizons for Harold Hill New Life For Paddington New Opportunities for Walthamstow Off the Streets and into Work Safe Routes to School: Safe Roots for Communities Silwood Regeneration South Greenwich: Building New Links The Health Ladder to Social Inclusion: Redbridge and Waltham Forest The London Social Inclusion Growth Fund Thresholds Partnership Bid Vauxhall-all-Together Now West Green Learning Neighbourhood 2002 Commonwealth Games Economic and Social
220
Eastern Region Eastern Region London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London North West
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Programme Adswood & Bridgehall Community Partnership, Stockport Atherton Building Communities (ABC) Beacons for a Brighter Future - East Manchester Blackburn Central - Investing in the Future Building A Better Future, Macclesfield Building Better Communities, Skelmersdale Building Bridges, Barrow Cleartor Moor Regeneration, Cumbria Count me In, St Helens Cumbria Rural Regeneration East Bury Initiative Enterprising Rural Communities, East Lancashire Focus for Change, Halton Integrating and Sustaining Communities, Salford Liverpool City Centre Luneside Regeneration, Lancaster Northwood into the Millennium, Knowsley Opening Doors, Unlocking Opportunities - Pendle Opportunity and Inclusion, Rochdale Positive Alternatives for Young People: Old Trafford Speke Garston Partnership Tameside: New Opportunities for Communities Believing in Folkestone Community Based Capacity Building in Blackbird Leys, Oxford Connecting Communities, Isle of Thanet Developing Successful Cohesive Communities, Southampton Devonshire Re Bourne, Eastbourne East Kent Coalfield Regeneration Programme East Oxford Action Engaging the Local Community, Hastings Enterprising Leigh Park, Havant Gateways to Community Success, Thames Gateway Hailsham East Area Renewal (H.E.A.R.) Island Inclusive, Isle of Wight Kent Initiative on Drugs (KID 5) Map Partnership - Linking Us Together, Reading Network for the Regeneration of Communities in South East England Northgate Community Regeneration, Canterbury Promoting Social Inclusion, Brighton & Hove Regenerating the Heart of Portsmouth Rye Bay Renaissance North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
221
Simply Stoke, Slough South Kent Rural Development Area Partnership Spotlight On Bletchley, Milton Keynes Stanhope - Towards a Sense of Place, Ashford Swale Education & Vocational Training Programme CHANGE in Gloucestershire Engage West Cornwall Gloucester Challenging Attitudes Partnership New Deal for Torbay Weymouth & Portland Choices Programme Working Together for a Better Future, Plymouth Working Together for Change, Hartcliffe & Withywood Working With the Next Generation, Pill A Platform For Change, Kirklees Better Neighbourhoods and Confident Communities, Leeds Calderdale Communities Of The Future Communities in Partnership North Clifton Regeneration Creating an Inclusive and Prosperous City, Sheffield Hemsworth Coalfield Partnership, Wakefield Highfield Community Action, Bradford Social & Economic Regeneration of Ryedale South Yorkshire Coalfield Partnership Stocksbridges Future, Sheffield The Falsgrave Community Investment Initiative West Yorkshire Reach Out Partnership Widening Horizons - Withernsea & Southern Holderness Yorkshire and Humber Coastal Tourism Initiative Constructing Communities Basildon Five Links Crossbow 2 - Learning for Living Southend on Sea Get Sorted - Suffolk Association of Voluntary Organisations(SAVO) Growing Together, Thetford, the Brecks and Brandon Harlow Community Connections Lowestoft into Work Luton Dunstable- Making a Difference Oxmoor Opportunities, Huntingdon People at the Centre of Ipswich The Community Energy Sudbury Towards a Cohesive Learning Strategy for Great Yarmouth Vange New Skills Project, Basildon Waltham Cross Economic Regeneration Welwyn Hatfield Capacity Building
South East South East South East South East South East South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
222
Working Together - Suffolk Rural Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey A Model for Best Practice: Joined Up Regeneration in the Thames Gateway A New Manor, Woodberry Down, Stamford Hill Access to Excellence for Newhams Communities Access to Training for Visually Impaired People, Pan-London All Change @ Camden Central Centre of Expertise for Manufacturing, Thames gateway and Lee Valley Changing Places, Changing London Lives Children and Neighbourhoods in London Closing the Childcare Gap, Stratford Communities in Business, Poplar & Leaside Community Courthouse Initiative, Pan-London Community Involvement Across the London Region Delivering Londons Manufacturing in Thames Gateway South Destination Wembley Access to Opportunities Digital Learning Ring: The Next Generation, Pan-London Enterprise for Communities, Pan-London From Disadvantage to Opportunity, Croydon From Hardcore Homeless into Work, Pan-London Get Set for Citizenship, New Cross and Deptford H2R Hard to Reach Including a Community, Harlesden Health Benefits Regeneration, Greenwich Joining Up Northumberland Park, Tottenham Keep London Working London Civic Forum Reconnecting London London South Central Connections, Vauxhall Manufacturing Investment and Workforce Development, Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Thurrock More London Bridge: More Opportunities for Residents and Employees/ers, London Bridge New Beginnings New Settlements, Tower Hamlets Opportunity Into Reality: A New Waterloo Park Royal Connect Positive Futures, Positive Lives, Pan-London Prosperity and Pride in Peckham Putting New Heart into Grahame Park, Barnet Raising our Sights: New Ambitions for Young People in Lambeth Raising the Dalgarno, North Kensington Re-engineering Secondary Materials for the Thames Gateway Renewal Turning Adversity into Opportunity for Refugees and Recent Arrivals in West London, Ealing, Hammersmith and
Eastern Region Eastern Region London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
223
Hounslow Southwarks Campaign Against Hate Crimes Stonebridge Area Youth Project The Art of Regeneration, North Lewisham and West Greenwich The Circle Initiative, Central London The Grid for Creative London The Job Opportunities Programme, Opening the Door of Opportunity for the Black and other Ethnic Minority Communities, Pan-London Tree-mendous Londoners, Whitechapel, Elephant and Castle and Stockwell Urban Renaissance in Lewisham Young People Agents for Change, Tooting Removing Barriers/Creating Opportunities in Blackpool Building Sustainable Community achieving Social Inclusion, Bolton Creating Confidence in Burnley's Communities Liverpool City Centre Oldhams Route to Renaissance Preston's Winning Aven Central South Sefton Wirral Waterfront The People of Accrington and Church Together, Hyndburn The Time is Now for Nelson, Pendle Linking Life Chances in Tameside Worsley Mesnes - "Worsley Mesnes Community Gains", Wigan Workington Regeneration Merseyside Third Technology Centre Building a Better Bacup, Rossendale Distinctly Cumbrian, rural Cumbria Changing East Lancashire 2 Investing in a Sustainable Competitive Future for the North West South Whitehaven New Commitment to Regeneration in West Cumbria - Making it Happen Able to do Business, Maidstone Coastal Renaissance in East Sussex Connecting Communities: Weacock & Rowner Compact, Gosport Connecting Paulsgrove and Wymering, Portsmouth Dover Urban Regeneration Programme East Kent Strategic Area Framework Hastings and St Leonards - A Sea Change London London London London London London 6 6 6 6 6 6
London London London North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West South East South East South East South East South East South East South East
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
224
Herne Bay & Whitstable Coastal Regeneration Programme Medway Innovation Centre, Medway Towns North Kent Forward Pooling out Resources: Changing Course and Culture in Eastbourne Promoting Regional Race Equality and Social InclusionPRREDASI Promoting Social Inclusion, Brighton & Hove Rural Towns - Rural Life, SE rural Market Towns Ryde 2000, Isle of Wight Southampton Community Futures Swanley - People First Thames Valley Social Enterprise Thanet Horizons The Community Development and Training Partnership, SE Region Turning the Tide : A Bright Coastal Future, W Sussex Coastal Bath - Improving Communities Together Bid for Sutton Ward, Plymouth Boscombe, A Working Community, Bournemouth Bringing Bristol Together Bringing Glastonbury Together Capacity Building in South Somerset Market Towns Communities First in Rural Somerset, Phase II Dorset Country Towns Forest of Dean Young People's Project Gloucester Challenging Attitudes Hamp for Hamp, Sedgemoor Parks and Walcot East Regeneration, Swindon Regeneration of South Western Bridport Social Inclusion Groups & Networks (SIGN), Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Towards a Regional Infrastructure, South West Weston-super-Mare - Together we can make a Difference Wiltshire Market Towns STAR Project Wonford Regeneration Partnership, Exeter Bradford Regeneration 2000 Community North Forum (Sheffield) Regeneration Plan Credit Union Regional Resource, Yorkshire & Humber Experiencing Enterprise, Barnsley, Bradford, Hull, North Yorkshire Hull - Local Communities, Social Inclusion and the Regional Economy Humber Works Leeds - Aire Valley Employment Area
South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
225
North Wakefield - Working on Cold Coal North Yorkshire - Developing Futures for Community and Agricultural Regen. Putting the Heart back into Sheffield Regen - Halifax - 2000 Regenerating North East Lincolnshire RESURGO North Lincolnshire Ripon Moving Forward, Ripon City Royds Community Enterprise Park - Purpose Built and Secure by Design, Bradford Sheffield - Netherthorpe & Upperthorpe Sustainable Regeneration South Yorkshire Black Communities Development Programme South Yorkshire Coalfield - A New Economy for the 21 Century
st
Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Spirit of Staithes Regeneration Initiative, North Yorkshire
226
Appendix B List of evaluations reviewed
SRB Scheme
A Brighter Future for East Colchester A Neighbourhood Regeneration Strategy for Stevenage Borehamwood Building on the Foundations, Kings Lynn Building Up, Reaching Out Watford and South Oxhey Cobholm & Lichfield Community Partnership, Great Yarmouth Community & Voluntary Forum for the Eastern Region (COVER) Constructing Communities Basildon Five Links Harlow Community Connections Herts Youth Life Chances Kirkley Regeneration Initiative, Lowestoft Learning City, Norwich Lowestoft into work Luton Dunstable People at the Centre of Ipswich Regenerating Heritage Coast, Suffolk Regenerating Peterborough South Ockendon Regeneration Training Education Delivery The Community Energy Sudbury Tilbury Port Vange New Skills Project, Basildon Waltham Cross Economic Regeneration Watford & SW Herts Partnership Group Welwyn Hatfield Capacity Building Wisbech Working Together - Suffolk Rural A New Future for Finsbury Park A New Manor, Woodberry Down, Stamford Hill Access to Excellence for Newhams Communities
Region
Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region London London London
227
Access to Training for Visually Impaired People, PanLondon Action Acton: From the Margins to the Mainstream All Change @ Camden Central Young People Agents for Change, Tooting Bexley: Investing in Belvedere Bridging The Divides Bridging the Gap Bridging the Gap, Redbridge Building a Future in North West London Building on Excellence, Westminster Building Sustainable Communities: Forest Gate and Plaistow Centre of Expertise for Manufacturing, Thames gateway and Lee Valley Changing Places, Changing London Lives Changing Practices: North West London TEC Children and Neighbourhoods in London Children In The City City Fringe Phase 2 - Bridging the Gap Closing the Childcare Gap, Stratford Communities in Business, Poplar & Leaside Community Involvement Across the London Region Community Safety Dimension for Thames Gateway Connecting Communities Connecting Stockwell Cray Valley Regeneration Cross River Communities Cross River Partnership 1996 Crystal Palace - Restoring The Vision Delivering Londons Manufacturing in Thames Gateway South Destination Wembley Access to Opportunities Digital Learning Ring Digital Learning Ring: The Next Generation, PanLondon East Battersea Power House Elephant Links Engineering a Competitive Future at the Heart of Thames Gateway Enterprise for Communities, Pan-London Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Capacity Building Programme From Dependency to Work, Pan-London From Disadvantage to Opportunity, Croydon
London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London
228
From Hardcore Homeless into Work, Pan-London Get Set for Citizenship, New Cross and Deptford Getting London Working Green Networks: A West London Pilot H2R Hard to Reach Including a Community, Harlesden Hackney Wick Regeneration Haggerston Partnership: Connecting Regeneration Haringey Heartlands Health Benefits Regeneration, Greenwich Its Not Your Skills.......Its Your Attitude Joining Up Northumberland Park, Tottenham Keep London Working LOuverture - Widening Participation in Education and Learning Lea Side, Tower Hamlets London East TEC: London Accord London New Business Creation London South Central Connections, Vauxhall London's Canals And River Corridors Manufacturing Investment and Workforce Development, Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Thurrock Merton: Pollards Hill Estate Missing Links: Finsbury Park Community Trust More London Bridge: More Opportunities for Residents and Employees/ers, London Bridge New Commitment to Kilburn New Horizons for Harold Hill New Life For Paddington New Opportunities for Walthamstow White City Regeneration Once in 1000 Years: Opportunities in Greenwich Opportunity Into Reality: A New Waterloo Park Royal Connect Positive Futures, Positive Lives, Pan-London Prosperity and Pride in Peckham Putting New Heart into Grahame Park, Barnet Raising our Sights: New Ambitions for Young People in Lambeth Raising the Dalgarno, North Kensington West Of The Borough - LB Tower Hamlets Re-engineering Secondary Materials for the Thames Gateway Renewal Turning Adversity into Opportunity for Refugees and Recent Arrivals in West London, Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow
London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London
London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London
229
Safe in the City Silwood Regeneration Skills For The Millennium in Thames Gateway South Greenwich: Building New Links Southall Regeneration Partnership Southwarks Campaign Against Hate Crimes Stratford: A Strategy For Schools Take Another Look at Abbey Wood and Thamesmead The Art of Regeneration, North Lewisham and West Greenwich The Circle Initiative, Central London The Health Ladder to Social Inclusion: Redbridge and Waltham Forest Thresholds Partnership Bid Tomorrow's City, Stratford Tottenham Futures Tree-mendous Londoners, Whitechapel, Elephant and Castle and Stockwell West Green Learning Neighbourhood Urban Renaissance in Lewisham Vauxhall-all-Together Now Virtual Learning And Access Community Wandsworth Housing Association: Shortlife "Plus" (Pilot Initiative) Wandsworth Town - A New Urban Centre Adswood & Bridgehall, Stockport Atherton Building Communities Blackburn Central Brinnington Community, Stockport Building A Better Future, Macclesfield (Colshaw Farm) Building Better Communities, Skelmersdale Building Sustainable Communities Building a Better Bacup, Rossendale Cleator Moor Regeneration Commonwealth Games Count Me In St Helens Creating Confidence in Burnley's Communities Dismantling Barriers For Black And Ethnic Minority Communities - Progress Trust - Manchester East Bury Eastlink Manchester/Tameside Enterprises Expanding Horizons, Merseyside Halewood Partnership Hattersley Towards A Learning Community Heart of the Port - Ellesmere Port
230
London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London London North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West
Integrating & Sustaining Communities Investing in a Sustainable Competitive Future for the North West Lancashire Tourism Partnership Lancaster - Luneside Leading Edge Bury linking life chances in Tameside Manchester TEC LTD - 14-19 Youth Strategy In The TEC Area Maryport Regeneration Merseyside New Opportunities On the Wirral New Wallasey Oldham - Welfare To Work Oldham Glodwick Oldham's Route To Renaissance Partington & Carrington, Trafford Pendle- Kick Start for Jobs Positive Alternatives For Young People Positively Raffles, Carlisle Preston - Aven Central Regeneration In West Chester Rochdale South Sefton Partnership South Whitehaven Partnership Stockport In The Market Place Sustainable Regeneration Through Tourism The Heart of Barrow Building Bridges The Wythenshawe Initiative AKA East Wythenshawe Wigan's Regeneration Working Together Winsford into Work, Vale Royal Wirral Waterfront Workington Regeneration A Catalyst for Business and Skills Growth, Bexhill ADUR Industry First Barton Community Regeneration Believing In Folkestone Believing in Folkestone Believing in Folkestone Community Based Capacity Building in Blackbird Leys, Oxford Competing For Jobs And People, Hastings Connecting Communities, Isle of Thanet Connecting Communities: Weacock & Rowner
North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West North West South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East
231
Compact, Gosport Connecting Paulsgrove and Wymering, Portsmouth Dover Urban Regeneration Programme East Kent Coalfield Regeneration Programme East Oxford Action East Reading Area Partnership East Reading Partnership Education Achievement Programme - Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Engaging the Local Community, Hastings Enterprising Leigh Park, Havant Former East Kent Coalfield Gateways to Community Success, Thames Gateway Hailsham East Area Renewal (H.E.A.R.) Hastings and St Leonards - A Sea Change Herne Bay & Whitstable Coastal Regeneration Programme Island Inclusive, Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Littlehampton 2000 Medway Innovation Centre, Medway Towns North Kent Gateway to Opportunity Northgate Community Regeneration, Canterbury People at the Centre of Slough Pooling out Resources: Changing Course and Culture in Eastbourne Promoting Social Inclusion, Brighton & Hove Regenerating the Heart of Portsmouth Ryde 2000, Isle of Wight Rye Bay Renaissance Simply Stoke, Slough Slough New Generation South Kent Rural Development Area Partnership Southampton Community Futures Spotlight On Bletchley, Milton Keynes Stanhope - Towards a Sense of Place, Ashford Swanley - People First Thames Valley Social Enterprise Thanet Horizons Thanet Talent Towards a Safer Community, Hastings Turning the Tide : A Bright Coastal Future, W Sussex Coastal Wolverton Works South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South East
232
CHANGE in Gloucestershire Barnstaple Bid for Sutton Ward, Plymouth Boscombe, A Working Community, Bournemouth Bridging the Gap, South Gloucestershire and Bristol Bringing Bristol Together Bringing Glastonbury Together Capacity Building in South Somerset Market Towns Cheltenham: ST. Pauls (Lower High St) Renewal Area Communities First in Rural Somerset, Phase II Dorset Country Towns Engage West Cornwall Forest of Dean Young People's Project Gloucester Challenging Attitudes Hamp for Hamp, Sedgemoor HOPE for Youth in Exeter New Deal for Torbay Northern ARC, Bristol Norton/Radstock, Somerset: Rural Regeneration Parks and Walcot East Regeneration, Swindon Pivotal Crime Points Drugs Initiative, Gloucestershire Plymouth 2000 Plymouth Turning the Tide Promoting Real Opportunities by Mentoring in Somerset (PROMISE) Regeneration of Gloucestershire Market Towns Restormel, Cornwall : Community Housing Employment Environment Regeneration Scheme, (CHEERS) Rural Action For The Development of Information, Communication, Advice and Learning (RADICAL), North Cornwall Smart Isles West, Region Wide Social Inclusion Groups & Networks (SIGN), Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Swindon: Building On Success Taunton East Action The West Cornwall Employment Programme Tidworth Community Regeneration, Wiltshire Torridge & North Devon : Young People Towards a Regional Infrastructure, South West Weston-super-Mare - Together we can make a Difference Weston-Super-Mare : Unlocking Potential Weymouth & Portland Choices Programme
South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West
South West
South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West
233
Weymouth: Waterside Regeneration Wiltshire Market Towns STAR Project Wonford Regeneration Partnership, Exeter Working Together for a Better Future, Plymouth Working Together for Change, Hartcliffe & Withywood Working With the Next Generation, Pill Yeovil : Stepping Towards Enterprise Youth Owning Urban Regeneration (YOUR), Bristol A New Deal for Barnsley A Platform For Change, Kirklees Acorns Westcliff & Riddings Regeneration, Scunthorpe Back On Track Barton Upon Humber Regeneration Better Neighbourhoods and Confident Communities, Bradford Regeneration 2000 Building A Better Bridlington Building On Achievement, Dearne Valley Partnership Building on the Foundations, Goole Building The Future- Investing In Youth (NE Lincolnshire) Calderdale Communities Of The Future Communities in Partnership North Clifton Regeneration Community Regeneration Partnerships, Sheffield Creating a Learning Community - NE Lincs Creating an Inclusive and Prosperous City, Sheffield Dalton, Rawthorpe & Moldgreen, Huddersfield Experiencing Enterprise, Barnsley, Bradford, Hull, North Yorkshire Facing the Future, Manningham & Girlington Foundations For A Competitive Economy Hemsworth Coalfield Partnership, Wakefield Investing in the Community, Beeston & Holbeck Leeds Learning Youth and Using our Abilities, Hull Leeds - Aire Valley Employment Area Local Communities, Social Inclusion and Regional Economy New York Riverside, Rotherham Newlands Integrated Regeneration Strategy North Yorkshire - Developing Futures for Community and Agricultural Regen. Opportunities for All, Dearne Valley Partnership With Young People, Leeds Regenerating North East Lincolnshire Regeneration of the Catterick Garrison Communities
South West South West South West South West South West South West South West South West Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber
234
RESURGO North Lincolnshire Ripon Moving Forward, Ripon City River Hull Corridor, Phase 1 : Heartlands Routes to Employment in North Halifax Sheffield - Netherthorpe & Upperthorpe Sustainable Regeneration Social & Economic Regeneration of Ryedale Sowerby Bridge Spirit of Staithes Regeneration Initiative, North Yorkshire The Falsgrave Community Investment Initiative The Filey Bay Regeneration Initiative West Yorkshire Reach Out Partnership Widening Horizons - Withernsea & Southern Holderness Young People: Sharing Rotherham's Future
Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber
235
Appendix C List of stakeholder consultations
Name
Jamie Merrick Dave Parratt Jools Tinsley Neil Stott Laura Church Jai Raithatha Badrul Islam Diane Burridge
Organisation
EEDA EEDA Great Yarmouth BC Keystone Development Trust Luton BC Suffolk CC Ethnic minority Enterprise Project LDA
Position
Head of Strategy Senior Project Manager, Major Projects Team Regeneration Officer Chief Executive Head of Regeneration Regional Policy Manager Director of Ethnic minority Enterprise Project Senior Relationships & Investment Planning Manager Head of Relationships & Investment Planning Interim Head of Relationships and IP Regeneration Manager Project Delivery Manager, Programmes and Delivery Project Delivery Manager, Programmes and Delivery Policy Manager, Policy and Strategy Head of Programme Office Head of Area Policy and Partnerships Area Manager - Milton Keynes Head of Urban Renaissance and Housing Executive Director, Portsmouth & South Hampshire Partnership Head of Partnerships, Voluntary Sector and Partnerships Unit,
Region
Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region Eastern Region London London
Isobel Rawlinson Caroline Bostock Andrew Sproat Ken Smith Mark Canning Ruth Pugsley Val Browne Pam McHale Ross Hurley Pat Tempany Martin Dennison
LDA LDA NWDA NWDA NWDA NWDA NWDA SEEDA SEEDA SEEDA Portsmouth & South Hampshire Partnership Slough Borough Council
London London North West North West North West North West North West South East South East South East South East
Shelagh Cuell
South East
236
Mel Bonney-Kane Nigel Williams Roger Vaughan Neil Robertson Stephen Hewitt Lisa Evans Professor Murray Don Stewart Tracy Greig John Shepherd Naseem Kereshi Christian Foster Simeon Leach
Hastings Trust SWRDA SWRDA Cornwall Enterprise Hartcliffe & Withywood Ventures Plymouth City Council Ex-University of the West of England Yorkshire Forward Yorkshire Forward Action Halifax Regen2000 Doncaster MBC Rotherham MBC
Executive Director Community Regeneration Partnership Manager Project Review Advisor Head of Partnership and Fund services division Chief Executive of HWV Partnership Senior Accountant Retired professor Executive Director, Strategy Senior Regeneration Development Manager Chief Executive Project Manager Programmes Manager Economic Strategy Team Manager
South East South West South West South West South West South West South West Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber
237
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 PwCs 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

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SRB Evaluation For Six English Regions

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Government and Public Sector August 2008

Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform

Government and Public Sector August 2008

Overall projects and expenditure in the six regions

Round 1-6 Total

Round 3-6 Total

1A (i) Number of jobs created

440,000 people attended crime prevention initiatives.

Overall impacts and findings

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

Limitations of the methodology

SRB history and context

improving the employment prospects of local people;

% of total SOAs in lowest IMD quartile nationally

% of SRB funding received

Variance (percentage points)

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

Role of RDAs in SRB

4 Approach and methodology

Scope of the meta-evaluation

Round 1-6 Total

Round 3-6 Total

EEDA LDA NWDA SEEDA SWRDA YF Totals

SRB project evaluation evidence

Percentage of schemes for that Round

Percentage of budgeted expenditure

Amount of budgeted expenditure (m)

Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Total

139 88 118 140 485

51% 56% 64% 66% 60%

63% 72% 72% 64% 67%

Number of schemes with evaluations received

Number of schemes above 3m

Number of schemes with evaluations received

Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Total

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

Number of evaluations containing net outputs

Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Total

Source: PwC/York Consulting

Profile of expenditure and gross outputs

Round 5 20.6 319.8 217.8 70.4 30.9 108.8 768.3

Round 6 32.7 300.0 231.6 70.0 31.7 230.2 896.2

Total 80.6 972.9 644.4 271.4 96.1 527.2 2,600.1

18.6 287.3 141.9 108.0 23.1 130.6 709.5

The basis for assessing interventions

the enhancement of employment prospects of local people through training;

Activities focused on a local area could:

Challenge Fund Round Four Bidding Guidance, ODPM As 1 As 8 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG data

Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG data

Source: PwC analysis, based on CLG data

SRB Round 6 Bidding Guidance, ODPM PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

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

Figure 4.1: Logic model for the national SRB Programme

The design of SRB

assistance available for regeneration; regeneration

from eighteen previously separate programmes; programmes

Improved health Improved health

Proportion of outputs that are additional

Proportion of outputs that are additional

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

Value for money

Limitations of the methodology