APPENDIX 1 (GRI 17(i))|
1. BRIGHTON URBAN
Key findings from the URBAN programme evaluation:
If communities are to be fully involved
in the design and implementation of regeneration programmes, adequate
community development support must be built in from the start,
before and in parallel to the development of the Action Plan.
If match funding is part of the programme, community development
should be exempt or fully matched by public sector partners. Resources
need to be provided up front for capacity building and community
Adequate time should be allowed for
involving communities in developing a vision and planning the
programme, particularly where hard-to-reach communities are to
Communities should be fully involved
in defining and negotiating "what counts": the framework
of outputs and criteria for evaluation.
There is a need to address the tension
between the need to account for public money and the importance
of flexibility if new approaches are to be found to social exclusion
and if communities are to be fully involved.
Many respondents interviewed as part of this
evaluation felt that communities were excluded and alienated by
over-complicated and bureaucratic processes. Furthermore, many
respondents felt that the amount of time spent on completing monitoring
and collecting detailed information took funds away from front-line
Strategies for sustainability need
to be built in from the start.
2. THE HANGLETON
& KNOLL SRB2 PROGRAMME
Empowerment of the community is an
essential prerequisite in maximising the impact of regeneration
programmes. The Hangleton & Knoll Project placed great emphasis
on a programme designed by the community, for the community and
delivered by the community. The evaluation concluded that the
success of community-led regeneration programmes is likely to
be greater where there is an emphasis placed on partnership working
with local residents and the building of community capacity.
3. LESSONS LEARNT
FROM SRB PROGRAMMES
Lengthy lead-in times for regeneration
programmes/projects should be taken fully into account and funding
allocated to ensure robust project development and community involvement;
With regard to projects set up to
encourage lifelong learning, government should recognise that
the emphasis on achieving qualifications (which necessitates)
considerable form-filling) can be very off putting to the very
individuals who need to be engaged in any form of learning. Particularly
for people who have had a poor experience of education and those
with mental health or substance misuse problems where a more flexible
approach is more likely to achieve long-term benefits.
There needs to be greater flexibility
built into regeneration programmes, particularly those where funding
is agreed for a programme designed to last for several years.
Changing need (coupled with other changes taking place in an area)
may result in changes in priorities and programmes need to allow
A greater emphasis should be placed
on evaluating outcomes as opposed to assessing projects on their
ability to meet outputs.
For SRB-funded projects where there
is a requirement for appraisals to be conducted by RDAs, both
time and public money would be saved if RDAs agreed to joint appraisals
with Regeneration Partnerships.
Regeneration programmes should encourage
(and fund) project development in advance of spend period to avoid
4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
There is a need to recognise the investment
the investment required to develop, facilitate and project manage
major regeneration and infrastructure projects. Far too often,
the costs of legal and financial advice is not considered at an
early enough stage leaving authorities with limited resources
and over-stretched professional business services (ie lawyers
and accountants etc).
An ever-increasing constraint faced by Local
Authorities to local economic development is the confusion and
barriers on State Aid, the interpretation and use of Section 123
of the Local Government's Act 1972, procurement and competition
rules and land disposal within a "Best Consideration"
The attached paper "Sweating the Equity",
authored by Sarah Tanburn, Director Culture & Regeneration,
provides some illustrations to these issues.
Our local business partners have often criticised
the government, RDAs' and other regeneration partnerships for
their slow decision making processes. This accompanied with changes
in the landscape for funding streamsTEC/LSC, GOSE/SEEDA
and the transition from SRB to so called Single pot may create
a new round of headaches, bureaucracies and a maze to work throughthis
constrains, delays and complicates regeneration activity (come
consistency would be useful).
Innovation is too often a key criteria for funding
streams, ruling out many tried and tested and successful programmes
Co-financing for the European Social Fund is
going in the right direction for government in reducing the perpetual
scrabble around for match-funding (now as much an issue for cash
strapped local authorities as it is for the voluntary/community
sector), but there is still a long way to go with other funding